dvd-discuss.archive.0002100660 764 764 12374554 7057536404 15377 0ustar wseltzerwseltzerFrom dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 13 17:12:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03729 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:12:53 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA03690 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:12:52 -0500 Received: (qmail 8510 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Feb 2000 22:13:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000213221302.8509.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 14:13:02 PST Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 14:13:02 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Hello To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Greetings. This is my first post to dvd-discuss, so I will kick things off by introducing myself. Before doing so, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Wendy Seltzer of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society for finding time in her busy schedule to create this list and the associated discussion forum on openlaw. OK, my name is Bryan Taylor, I am a database consultant and an open source software advocate who lives in San Antonio. I have an MA in mathematics from Berkeley, where I was a classmate of Dan Bernstein, whose encryption source code case is so well known. I see the DVD cases as the natural complement to Bernstein's case. Just as free speach protects the right to communicate results about encryption, so it protects the right to discuss the technicalities of decryption. In this case as well as Bernstein's, the government's policy is to promote insecurity to achieve security. This oxymoronic belief is deeply troubling, and worse endangers the very interests it seeks to protect. I am also a consumer for DVD products. I own a DVD-ROM drive in my home computer, which runs Red Hat Linux. I have managed to collect only one DVD movie, The English Patient. I would probably have more, but as I don't run windows anymore, I can't use them because until recently, DVD movies could not be played under Linux. My DVD's copyright notice states that "This DVD is for private home viewing only.", which is all I want to do. Now that I've introduced myself and my motivations for being here, I would like to encourage others on this list to do the same. I look forward to engaging legal discussion... Bryan Taylor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 13 22:41:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA23636 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:41:26 -0500 Received: from pixie.mit.edu (root@PIXIE.MIT.EDU [18.238.0.85]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA23592 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:41:25 -0500 Received: by pixie.mit.edu (Linux Smail3.2.0.101 #1) id m12KCOQ-0010AHC; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:41:46 -0500 (EST) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Permission from DVD content producer? From: Ray Jones Date: 14 Feb 2000 03:41:46 +0000 Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.2.37/Emacs 19.30 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I have two questions that relate to the MPAA's suit: 1- Are there other producers of content distributed on DVD (and encoded with CSS) than the members of the MPAA? Is it possible for anyone to pay the CSS licensing fee and put out their own DVD? If the answer to this is yes, then... 2- Wouldn't permission from *any* such producer to view their content under Linux via DeCSS be sufficient to remove from DeCSS the label of being a device "primarily for circumvention?" I've been unable to find answers to these questions; someone more familiar with the DVD production system might be able to shed some light. Ray Jones From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 13 22:51:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA27540 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:51:09 -0500 Received: from plato.nebulanet.net (net255ip100.parklink.com [38.202.255.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA27536 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:51:05 -0500 Received: (from mabus@localhost) by plato.nebulanet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) id WAA00518 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:47:10 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:47:10 -0500 From: mabus To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] It's just wrong Message-ID: <20000213224710.B460@plato.nebulanet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Legal or not, it's just wrong. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read through the DMCA yet so I'm not too sure of the current legality. I do have a few questions about the DMCA if anyone would care to answer them. Let's jsut say that the MPAA wins and gets everyone shutdown or executed for stepping out of line. The have already sited the DMCA many times and seem to like it a little too much. Then say a few months later the DMCA is pulled from the books or changed drastically, for reasons I'll let you decide. Are the cases that are won by using the DMCA before it was changed or killed still justifiable or enforcable? I would think not, but laws are crazy sometimes (ie. DMCA). By the way, my name is Brian. I still have a mirror up. I plan to keep it up be it legal or illegal. I know what the constitution gives me and I plan to make good use of it. I think that this is only the beginning of the fight. Corporations merging with governments. Information control. Every few generations goes through a loss of the sense of freedom. In the past, wars are what generally rejuvinate the ideas of freedom. I think we're on a completely new playing ground here. The enemy has landed on our information and war is now at hand. The fight for freedom has begun once again. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 13 22:59:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA00538 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:59:29 -0500 Received: from plato.nebulanet.net (net255ip100.parklink.com [38.202.255.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA00397 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:59:23 -0500 Received: (from mabus@localhost) by plato.nebulanet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) id WAA00539 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:55:28 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:55:28 -0500 From: mabus To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Permission from DVD content producer? Message-ID: <20000213225528.C460@plato.nebulanet.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from rjones@pobox.com on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:41:46AM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From what I understand the licensing fee to use the encryption keys to create your own dvd movies is extremely expensive. Obviously to keep out future unwanted competitors. But the second statement does sound interesting and almost possible. Something looking into for sure. But since the fee for using it costs so much I think that if any software company wanted to use it for *nix they would have to pay for another license. It would have to be approved by the MPAA which probably wouldn't happen. Then they would have to look at the costs for producing the software verses how many people would actually buy it. On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:41:46AM +0000, Ray Jones wrote: > I have two questions that relate to the MPAA's suit: > > 1- Are there other producers of content distributed on DVD (and > encoded with CSS) than the members of the MPAA? Is it possible for > anyone to pay the CSS licensing fee and put out their own DVD? > > If the answer to this is yes, then... > > 2- Wouldn't permission from *any* such producer to view their content > under Linux via DeCSS be sufficient to remove from DeCSS the label of > being a device "primarily for circumvention?" > > I've been unable to find answers to these questions; someone more > familiar with the DVD production system might be able to shed some > light. > > Ray Jones From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 13 23:15:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA13560 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:15:46 -0500 Received: from mail1.bellatlantic.net (mail1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.32.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA13546 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:15:45 -0500 Received: from banquo (adsl-151-202-34-10.bellatlantic.net [151.202.34.10]) by mail1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA26665 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:15:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000213230433.00d9e200@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:17:52 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Permission from DVD content producer? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sounds like a good thought, and a great question to research. It might add another branch to the interoperability argument. Should the MPAA/DVDCCA be able to monopolize a format? On the other hand, I'm afraid we'll find that producers of content have to sign a draconian license agreement to get a CSS key, which prohibits them from giving any extra license privileges to end-users of DVDs. --Wendy At 03:41 AM 2/14/00 +0000, you wrote: >I have two questions that relate to the MPAA's suit: > >1- Are there other producers of content distributed on DVD (and >encoded with CSS) than the members of the MPAA? Is it possible for >anyone to pay the CSS licensing fee and put out their own DVD? > >If the answer to this is yes, then... > >2- Wouldn't permission from *any* such producer to view their content >under Linux via DeCSS be sufficient to remove from DeCSS the label of >being a device "primarily for circumvention?" > >I've been unable to find answers to these questions; someone more >familiar with the DVD production system might be able to shed some >light. > >Ray Jones > --- Wendy Seltzer Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 13 23:33:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA26130 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:33:38 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA26121 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:33:36 -0500 Received: (qmail 17066 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 04:33:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214043346.17065.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:33:46 PST Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:33:46 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Permission from DVD content producer? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ray Jones wrote: > 1- Are there other producers of content distributed on DVD (and > encoded with CSS) than the members of the MPAA? Is it possible for > anyone to pay the CSS licensing fee and put out their own DVD? I don't know the answer, but I bet if you do license it, then you have to sign contracts and non-disclosure agreements etc that prevent this. BUT, it's not patented, so I don't think the DMCA would keep you from creating content but refusing to licencing the technology. Trade secrets might, but I really doubt that case is going to hold up, especially because they published the secret in unsealed court documents :-] > 2- Wouldn't permission from *any* such producer to view their content > under Linux via DeCSS be sufficient to remove from DeCSS the label of > being a device "primarily for circumvention?" I would think so, but again if it's licenced they are surely restricted from doing this. Bryan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 13 23:35:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA27991 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:35:17 -0500 Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA27982 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:35:16 -0500 Received: from garnet.tc.umn.edu by mhub2.tc.umn.edu with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:34:59 -0600 Received: from localhost by garnet.tc.umn.edu with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:34:59 -0600 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:34:59 -0600 (CST) From: Timothy P Hadley To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] 17 USC 1201 - text available In-Reply-To: <20000213224710.B460@plato.nebulanet.net> Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, mabus wrote: > Legal or not, it's just wrong. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read through > the DMCA yet so I'm not too sure of the current legality. I do have a few = I've posted the text of 17 U.S.C. 1201, under which the complaint that I saw a copy of a week ago was brought. It's at http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hadl0031/17usc1201.html Section 1203 describes the remedies a court may grant. I'm not copying it in, but you can search the US Code at http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm. I'll introduce myself: I'm a first year law student at the University of Minnesota. I'm interested in this matter, but since I don't have much time at all, I will probably be confined to "lurking" much of the time. As far as computers go, I use Linux (except when I have to use Windows for legal research), and if I had had a DVD-ROM drive I probably would have downloaded DeCSS. That's all I've got time for right now. Have a nice day... --Tim I'd better add the disclaimer that if the law's been amended lately, the amendments won't show up in any online copies except those available through commercial research services. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 13 23:55:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09037 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:55:05 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA08998 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:55:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 23517 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 04:55:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214045517.23516.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:55:17 PST Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:55:17 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Permission from DVD content producer? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Sounds like a good thought, and a great question to research. It > might add another branch to the interoperability argument. Should the > MPAA/DVDCCA be able to monopolize a format? I think that there is a strong case to be made that the CSS licencing scheme is anti-competitive and runs a foul of the Sherman Act. A very strong precedent for this exists in the Supreme Court Case _US V Paramount Pictures (1948)_ . In this case the court found that the motion picture industries used their copyright licences to create two forms of anti-competitive practices. They used their copyright leverage on theaters A) to engage in price fixing, and B) to engage in "tying" one product to another (in this case movie A to movie B). Read the case at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=334&invol=131. Here's a choice quote from the discussion of block licencing: "The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, 547, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius. But the reward does not serve its public purpose if it is not related to the quality of the copyright. " I think there is a very strong point to be made that CSS is aimed not to stop piracy, but to create artificial pricing through the use of region codes and to artificially create a revenue stream, by tying playback technology to the copyright. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 00:03:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA13607 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:03:54 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA13594 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:03:52 -0500 Received: (qmail 19372 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 05:04:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214050406.19371.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:04:06 PST Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:04:06 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 17 USC 1201 - text available To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The EFF has posted a link with some of the legislative history. It also has a copy of the bill. Here's the link: http://www.hrrc.org/DMCA-leg-hist.html Also, the Judge's explanatory order is available: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000202_ny_memorandum_order.html Bryan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 00:33:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA28276 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:33:46 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA28273 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:33:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 19784 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 05:33:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214053359.19783.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:33:59 PST Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:33:59 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Cryptome & the California Case To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There is a lot of good information on the DVD cases at http://jya.com/cryptout.htm#DVD-DeCSS which is a subpage of http://www.cryptome.org/ In particular, one important document there is http://cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm a court document which was obtained and published before it was sealed. It contains DeCSS within it. Does this not nuke the trade secret case? Also of great interest there is http://cryptome.org/dvd-stevenson.htm in which Frank Stevensson, a Norwegian cryptographer, describes his research findings, independant of DeCSS, that decimate the trade secret case: "16. On or about October 28, 1999 I made a post describing a break on the player keys to the Livid project mailing list. This attack will enable a competent programmer to derive all 400 or so player keys from a single known player key in 5 to 10 minutes on an ordinary PC. [...] 18. The methods described in the post from October 28 and 30 1999 combined, provides means for deriving a set of 400 player keys using only a purchased DVD movie as source. By virtue of this fact, the mere publication of a valid player key cannot be taken as proof that misappropriation of trade secrets must have occurred. 19. There are a variety of methods that can achieve the cracking of this encryption scheme without ever seeing or agreeing to a Xing license agreement." Bryan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 00:44:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA01341 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:44:19 -0500 Received: from dial235.roadrunner.com (dial235.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.235]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA01309 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:44:14 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial235.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA02372 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:47:12 -0700 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:47:11 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Fair use is mentioned on the website , but the issue runs deeper than this. The CSS "encryption" method is a mechanism to prevent reading or viewing of copyright material. It does not address the issue of copying at all. Make a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD, and the copy may be played in a DVD player just as well as the original. I have an analogy I like, and I'll subject you to it. Unknown languanges are a lot like encryption. If I don't comprehend Chinese, that has no effect on my ability to photocopy Chinese-language documents. Conversely, if I study Chinese, that indicates an intent to read Chinese texts, it says nothing either way about my intent to illegally duplicate copyrighted Chinese texts. Now substitute "Content Scrambling System" for "Chinese", and as far as copyright is concerned, we have a perfect analogy. The right to read should be axiomatic to both copyright law and to the First Amendment. CSS is an anti-reading measure, not an anti-duplication measure. Claiming that copyright law should allow the regulation of *reading* seems an extremely hard row to hoe. I agree that fair use should be argued in this case, but I think that the right to read is more basic than "fair use" because "fair use" is about copying in addition to other things (like criticism, scholarship, etc.) The DMCA's language is also prejudicial: "circumvention" of what? By avoiding discussion of *what* is being circumvented. In this case anti-reading measures are being circumvented. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 01:16:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA13958 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:16:41 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA13955 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:16:39 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06928 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:22:14 -0800 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:22:14 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000213222213.T15762@duskglow.com> References: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:47:11PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:47:11PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > but the issue runs deeper than this. The CSS "encryption" method is a > mechanism to prevent reading or viewing of copyright material. It does > not address the issue of copying at all. Make a bit-for-bit copy of a > DVD, and the copy may be played in a DVD player just as well as the original. > In fairness, most DVD recordable disks are shipped with that space burnt out. This doesn't mean the keys can't be placed elsewhere - just that the players won't read the keys in other locations. IS this a form of collusion in the market - preventing people from creating their own DVD disks with their own content? The firmware is also built not to transfer those keys in most players - though it's relatively easy to get around that... just update the flash. > I have an analogy I like, and I'll subject you to it. Unknown languanges > are a lot like encryption. If I don't comprehend Chinese, that has no > effect on my ability to photocopy Chinese-language documents. Conversely, > if I study Chinese, that indicates an intent to read Chinese texts, it > says nothing either way about my intent to illegally duplicate copyrighted > Chinese texts. Now substitute "Content Scrambling System" for "Chinese", > and as far as copyright is concerned, we have a perfect analogy. > Also, in fairness, Chinese does not require a special key to decode. Though I've seen it, and it may as well for all I know of it. > The right to read should be axiomatic to both copyright law and to the First > Amendment. CSS is an anti-reading measure, not an anti-duplication measure. > Claiming that copyright law should allow the regulation of *reading* seems > an extremely hard row to hoe. > This I agree with. Actually I agree with the above, too. I was just playing "Devil's Advocate". One of the reasons that the DVD CSS exists is to keep people from reading the content and copying it to a file, converting it, and uploading it. Which is essentially a moot point, considering that if you can get access to the digital stream ANYWHERE in the computer, then you've got the data. You just need to get to it somewhere past the decryption stage. > I agree that fair use should be argued in this case, but I think that > the right to read is more basic than "fair use" because "fair use" is > about copying in addition to other things (like criticism, scholarship, etc.) > I agree here. This comes down to: what license do you have to the content once you purchase it? Are you purchasing the content? Or the right to read it only in the way the media distributors approve? If it's the latter, is that legal? If it's legal, is it constitutional? And do the content providers have the right to impose those kinds of restrictions, locking out paying customers from viewing content in the way they prefer? It's interesting to note that the recent Sony vs. Connectix injunction was thrown out. The judges stated that copyright law does not guarantee a monopoly on reading the content. Or something like that. I'm a techie, not a lawyer :) Another angle here is the "region codes", which it is (from what I've seen) pretty much overwhelmingly agreed that these are illegal and wouldn't hold up to a challenge. Then again, that's just from what I've seen, and again, IANAL. If these were held to be illegal, would they provide collateral evidence of the DVD/CCA's intention to monopolize the player market and fix prices? --Russell > The DMCA's language is also prejudicial: "circumvention" of what? By avoiding > discussion of *what* is being circumvented. In this case anti-reading > measures are being circumvented. > > > Paul -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 01:39:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA21025 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:39:22 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA21021 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:39:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 24392 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 06:39:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214063935.24391.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:39:35 PST Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:39:35 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > The right to read should be axiomatic to both copyright law and to > the First Amendment. CSS is an anti-reading measure, not an > anti-duplication measure. Claiming that copyright law should allow the > regulation of *reading* seems an extremely hard row to hoe. I really think this is a good point. If "playback" is an infringement under the DMCA, does this mean that I can market encrypted books with special software that lets you view the plaintext but I do not authorize the reading of it aloud as one of the licenced forms of "access". I think the upshot of your "reading" argument can be stated as: the copyright power granted to congress cannot limit "access" when this does not result in a lasting copy being created. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 01:45:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA24643 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:45:40 -0500 Received: from mail1.bellatlantic.net (mail1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.32.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA24640 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:45:39 -0500 Received: from banquo (adsl-151-202-34-10.bellatlantic.net [151.202.34.10]) by mail1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA11564 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:45:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000214013657.00dda220@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:47:48 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Cryptome & the California Case In-Reply-To: <20000214053359.19783.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >In particular, one important document there is >http://cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm a court document which was >obtained and published before it was sealed. It contains DeCSS within >it. Does this not nuke the trade secret case? I had thought it would, by making the documents a part of the public record, but I've spoken with others who think the courts will just dismiss it as inadvertence and not a big deal. I believe the court put that document under seal at a later proceeding. >Also of great interest there is http://cryptome.org/dvd-stevenson.htm >in which Frank Stevensson, a Norwegian cryptographer, describes his >research findings, independant of DeCSS, that decimate the trade secret >case: The trade secret case seems like an ill-advised attempt to avoid dealing with the DMCA. It will take some specific research into the California law at issue to say how much water the claim can still hold against these arguments. --Wendy --- Wendy Seltzer Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 02:09:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA02816 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 02:09:28 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA02813 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 02:09:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 21083 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 07:09:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214070942.21082.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:09:42 PST Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:09:42 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] This DVD is for private home viewing only To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "This DVD is for private home viewing only" This is what my DVD ("The English Patient") copyright says. The definition of "circumvention a technological measure" found in DMCA 1201(a)(3)(A) includes the phrase "without the authority of the copyright owner". I believe that this authority was been sold to me at the time of purchase under the terms of the copyright licence, which mentions nothing about using an "authorized player". How would the MPAA respond to this? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 02:37:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA12253 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 02:37:53 -0500 Received: from yourbbs.plexmedia.net (root@yourbbs.plexmedia.net [209.140.15.10]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA12250 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 02:37:52 -0500 Received: from camelot (d99.nas21.sonic.net [209.204.136.99]) by yourbbs.plexmedia.net (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA14406 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:05:26 GMT Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000213233353.00a5a700@mail.yourbbs.com> X-Sender: yourbbs@mail.yourbbs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:39:20 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Ben Davis Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] This DVD is for private home viewing only In-Reply-To: <20000214070942.21082.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 11:09 PM 2/13/00 -0800, you wrote: >"This DVD is for private home viewing only" > >This is what my DVD ("The English Patient") copyright says. The >definition of "circumvention a technological measure" found in DMCA >1201(a)(3)(A) includes the phrase "without the authority of the >copyright owner". > >I believe that this authority was been sold to me at the time of >purchase under the terms of the copyright licence, which mentions >nothing about using an "authorized player". How would the MPAA respond >to this? >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com I would think that the authority would need to be given directly to you by the manufacturer rather than being an implied authority. I'm just curious as to what "circumventing a technological measure'" is defined as. If the authority to view your DVD has already been granted, and nothing says you can only used a authorized viewed-- how is using a home brewed player circumventing a technological measure? -Ben From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 02:50:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA16204 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 02:50:09 -0500 Received: from mercury.is.co.za (mercury.is.co.za [196.4.160.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA16194 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 02:50:06 -0500 Received: from hermwas.is.co.za (hermwas.is.co.za [196.23.0.8]) by mercury.is.co.za (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA32016 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:50:18 +0200 Received: (from hentis@localhost) by hermwas.is.co.za (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA27316 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:50:16 +0200 (SAT) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:50:16 +0200 From: Henti Smith To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] introduction and others .. Message-ID: <20000214095016.A27258@is.co.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i X-Operating-System: SunOS 5.6 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hi all .. My name is Henti Smith .. I live in South Africa .. and I use linux everyday as my personal OS of choice and at work. I'm dating a lawyer ( South African ) and hopefully I'll get her involved as well. I'm very interrested in see'ing how all this applies to South Africa. I'm also very techinical so hopefully I can add something to discussion in general but prolly very little in acual law :) anyway ... I'm glad to help out where I can :) Henti From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 03:40:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA00530 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 03:40:50 -0500 Received: from mail1.bellatlantic.net (mail1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.32.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA00527 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 03:40:49 -0500 Received: from banquo (adsl-151-202-34-10.bellatlantic.net [151.202.34.10]) by mail1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id DAA00253 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 03:40:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000214014827.020b27a0@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 03:42:47 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read In-Reply-To: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It appears to me that access controls substitute a scheme like contract for that of copyright, forcing everyone who wants to read a work to accept a very restrictive license. In contract, there would be various checks on the power of the writer of such a mass license (until UCC2B, at least) and only people who had actually agreed to the contract would be bound. Copyright binds everyone, but has the limitations of fair use and first sale. The problem here is that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically prohibits the use of tools to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls _access_ to a work." It "solves" the license problem by subjecting _everyone_ to the strrict terms the provider of an access-control technology wants to impose, without even the limited privileges copyright gave. I'd say there's a strong argument that the move from copy-control to access-control was not fully enough considered to be justified. For your example though, under current law, learning Chinese could be held illegal under the DMCA (if the translation were otherwise an "effective" access control). At 10:47 PM 2/13/00 -0700, fenimore@roadrunner.com wrote: >Fair use is mentioned on the website , >but the issue runs deeper than this. The CSS "encryption" method is a >mechanism to prevent reading or viewing of copyright material. It does >not address the issue of copying at all. Make a bit-for-bit copy of a >DVD, and the copy may be played in a DVD player just as well as the original. > >I have an analogy I like, and I'll subject you to it. Unknown languanges >are a lot like encryption. If I don't comprehend Chinese, that has no >effect on my ability to photocopy Chinese-language documents. Conversely, >if I study Chinese, that indicates an intent to read Chinese texts, it >says nothing either way about my intent to illegally duplicate copyrighted >Chinese texts. Now substitute "Content Scrambling System" for "Chinese", >and as far as copyright is concerned, we have a perfect analogy. While I like the right to read, there is always the right not to publish. In copyright, fair use is the compromise you give up for the government-granted monopoly when you do publish. From where can we draw a more absolute right to read? >The right to read should be axiomatic to both copyright law and to the First >Amendment. CSS is an anti-reading measure, not an anti-duplication measure. >Claiming that copyright law should allow the regulation of *reading* seems >an extremely hard row to hoe. --Wendy --- Wendy Seltzer Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 04:18:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA15439 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 04:18:52 -0500 Received: from mailcity.com (fes-qout.whowhere.com [209.1.236.7]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA15363 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 04:18:50 -0500 Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by mailcity.com; Mon Feb 14 01:16:50 2000 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:16:50 -0800 From: "jensen morse" Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sent-Mail: on X-Mailer: MailCity Service Subject: [dvd-discuss] (No Subject) X-Sender-Ip: 24.14.31.125 Organization: MailCity (http://www.mailcity.lycos.com:80) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I am curious as to how the recent appeal victory of sony vs connectix may work in to the dvd lawsuit(s)? Connectix created a content player by reverse engineering the bios of playstation, and then wrote a soft player for use on the mac and eventually windows. It seems to me that there is some relevance with this case but I might be missing something. the ruling can be viewed here http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/64ebd72fd6ca63e2882566fd000980b2/06d1e0893fdee11688256881006296b8?OpenDocument MailCity. Secure Email Anywhere, Anytime! http://www.mailcity.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 06:14:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA18405 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 06:14:45 -0500 Received: from Dalek.city.ac.uk (root@libpc-cdtower.city.ac.uk [138.40.51.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA18402 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 06:14:44 -0500 Received: from city.ac.uk (moog@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Dalek.city.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01121 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 13:27:19 +0100 Message-ID: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 13:27:16 +0100 From: Howard Richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hi! I've just joined up to share my thoughts on the DeCSS case, though don't take anything I say as gospel as I'm no lawyer! Apols in advance for repeating any arguments that may have been covered already. It appears to me that where the defence went wrong was that they failed to demonstrate that the judges perception of CSS as "copy protection" was innaccurate. Of course the judge was going to buy into the more "respectable" desception of the prosecuting council as opposed to a group of "hacker" (shock horror...). The onus was on defence to establish the following facts: * That CSS is infact a monopoly control device and not a copy protection device. MPEG videos as they stand would be playable on a huge range of systems being an open standard. There was no chance then of ever being able to patent the playback technology as it didn't belong to them. So they get round it by disguising it as a copy protection technology, which is protected by the DMCA, and licence that at people's cost instead. * That DVD piracy on hard disk is possible without resort to DeCSS, for instance using programs that intercept Direct Show streams. * That DVD piracy over the Internet is infeasible because of the size of the files. Arguments that one day in the future bandwidth will allow it widespread do not hold up, because under such conditions DVDs would be redundant technology. Everyone could simply stream their videos direct from the supplier, which would surely be their favourite method of distribution. The only pirated films on the net at the moment are of less than vhs quality because of the massive bandwidth requirements. Demonstrations in court need to be undertaken of: 1. a DVD film being copied to a computer readable format without resort to DeCSS. 2. a DVD film stripped using DeCSS and burned onto a blank DVDROM will not play in any DVD player. If DeCSS can be discredited as copy protection then the whole prosecuting case falls flat on its face... Howard Richardson, City University, London. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 07:25:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA05634 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:25:00 -0500 Received: from rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA05628 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:24:59 -0500 Received: from bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.226]) by rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04338 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:25:14 +0100 (MET) Received: (from roland@localhost) by bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA32670 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:25:14 +0100 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:25:14 +0100 From: Roland Nagtegaal To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Message-ID: <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk>; from Howard Richardson on Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:27:16PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:27:16PM +0100, Howard Richardson wrote: > Demonstrations in court need to be undertaken of: > 1. a DVD film being copied to a computer readable format without resort > to DeCSS. A clean room implementation could be done this way: Set up a computer with Windows 98, a DVD reader, a DVD writer, and a DAT streamer capable of holding at least a complete DVD movie (say 10GB). - Show that the movie can be copied with a framegrabber/audiograbber and mpeg-encoded and copied onto DAT. No DeCSS or Linux used at all here. Show that the result can be played again. - Show that the movie can be copied bit for bit from DVD-rom onto DVD-writable without using DeCSS, giving an encrypted movie on a disc. Show that the movie can be played on a regular DVD player. Again, no DeCSS or Linux used here. - Get some pirated movies out of China or whereever, and show that the content are again encrypted movies. Therefore no need for DeCSS to pirate movies. - Prove that DVDs are region coded, and that American movies cannot be played on European players or vice versa. Show that players can be switched from one region to the other up to 4 times, after which they are rendered inoperable, or will only work in the last region switched to. Prove that the only way to play the movie on a DVD-rom player not with the same region, is in fact to break the encryption. Show that copying is still not needed in that case. Get 3rd party expertise for providing this evidence. - Show a completed and easy to use DVD player application for Linux, without any copying function at all. Show that the only way to copy the movie then, would be to use a framegrabber, something that would always be possible. I think an AMD K7 should be fast enough to do mpeg2 encoding in software in near realtime? (of the framegrabbed content) - In short: prove by demonstration that copying of the movie on a DVD is by all means possible without DeCSS, and prove that playing a DVD disc on Linux is not possible without DeCSS. - Prove that there is a lot of popular demand to be able to play DVD on Linux. Argue that a player in software would have to be Open Source and free, because of portability to other hardware platforms and operating systems and because of different versions of the C libraries on different Linux distributions. > 2. a DVD film stripped using DeCSS and burned onto a blank DVDROM will > not play in any DVD player. This is not true I think. .VOB files that are unencrypted are on (mostly porn) DVDs now. > If DeCSS can be discredited as copy protection then the whole > prosecuting case falls flat on its face... The technical issues involved are really quite straightforward, and I think the technical side could be easily 'proved' in favor of the defence. I think the problem is: The defence suffers from lousy _appearance_. - association with hackers and obvious hacker-sites like 2600. Hackers have a bad bad name. 'Respectable' people wanting DVD for Linux should be much more in the picture. - bad language on websites spreading DeCSS, like 'Fuck the MPAA'. That has already been used AGAINST the defence. This has to stop. - the defence has been extremely weak. Ok, there was little time, and it has been orchestrated much that way. But still...no evidence has been presented at all, and the plaintiffs came with all kinds of evidence, mostly circum stantial, or purely emotional, like "see they have Fuck the MPAA on their websites". People could come up with prints of websites containing only stuff about good clean respectable Linux users wanting DVD on their boxes. Show that these are nice professionals working at respectable companies, with families and all that. These are not pirates. - Trying to prove that DeCSS is a form of free speech is not very convincing even to me. It would be much better to argue that the whole of the Open Source movement is in the spirit of free speech. Freedom to use and effectively make your own technology anyway you choose might count as freedom of expression. Argueing that DeCSS is needed as a part of a program that is a form of expression, the act of giving a DVD playing application to the community, that could be defended. - Let the corporates look bad, show how they try to limit free speech and criticism of their products. - How come that Ralph Nader is not into this case ? He should appear in the courtroom, presenting some kind of Kickass arguments for the defence. Now that would appear good. I think that this case cannot be won purely on technical grounds, because a. The judge is clearly prejudiced; b. The law is not very fair; c. Legal and technical people do not really speak the same language. But the technical side of the defence should be rock solid. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 07:41:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA11256 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:41:53 -0500 Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA11240 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:41:52 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inig7s.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.64.252]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA05710 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:42:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002141242.HAA05710@smtp7.atl.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:36:15 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS / CSS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Good to see this list. I operate the Cryptome Web site which, as noted here, hosts several CA and NY docs. The Hoy Reply Declaration mentioned here earlier does not contain DeCSS as exhibit, though Mr. Hoy declares that it does. Exhibit A provides program notes for DeCSS but not the program itself. Mr. Hoy gets the date wrong for these, declaring a download date of October 6, 1999, when the latest note is dated October 12, 1999. Exhibit B, later sealed by the court, is hand labeled "DeCSS" but is not the DeCSS program but CSS, the trade secret algorithm. Mr. Hoy declares that this code was downloaded from the Web; however, the document displays Japanese markings and format which appear to identify it as originating in Japan, which is the country of invention of the CSS algorithm. A fax header indicates that both Exhibits A and B were sent as a single fax to an unknown party on a January 2000 date. Exhibit C is a 39-page CSS Interim Licensing Agreement which describes in detail the provisions for licensing CSS. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 12:52:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01731 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:52:50 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA01728 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:52:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 9481 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 16:44:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214164441.9480.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:44:41 PST Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:44:41 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] This DVD is for private home viewing only To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ben Davis wrote: > I would think that the authority would need to be given directly to > you by the manufacturer rather than being an implied authority. I'm just > curious as to what "circumventing a technological measure'" is defined > as. If the authority to view your DVD has already been granted, and > nothing says you can only used a authorized viewed-- how is using a > home brewed player circumventing a technological measure? The exact text of DMCA 1201(a)(3)(A) : "to ‘circumvent a technological measure’ means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner" Note that the copyright owner refered to would be solely the movie copyright holder(s). Since no other interaction occurs (no contract, no click-wrap licence, etc) this granting must occur solely by the text written on the copy-right notice of the movie, or else you would not be able to play it even using a licenced player. With this in mind, look at the three clauses of 1201(a)(2): 1201(a)(2)(A) DeCSS is not "primarily" for such circumvention - it is primarily for exercising the _granted_ playback licence 1201(a)(2)(B) DeCSS has no commercial purpose at all, since it's GPL. Regardless, it's anti-commercial purpose again is not circumvention but again exercise of the _granted_ playback licence 1201(a)(2)(C) requires defendant-by-defendant analysis of marketing intent. If the marketing intent is circumvention, it's bad, otherwise it's ok. I do think www.dvd-copy.com may be in trouble, but if 2600.com can distance itself from them and align more with LiViD, they should be OK. This brings up a good question: how do we define "success". I really don't have any love for www.dvd-copy.com. If 2600.com wins but dvd-copy loses, then I consider that success. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 12:58:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04582 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:58:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@w129.z208177180.chi-il.dsl.cnc.net [208.177.180.129]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA04579 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:58:24 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12759 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:20:46 -0600 Message-ID: <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:20:43 -0600 From: Steve Stearns X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > - Show that the movie can be copied bit for bit from DVD-rom onto DVD-writable > without using DeCSS, giving an encrypted movie on a disc. > Show that the movie can be played on a regular DVD player. > Again, no DeCSS or Linux used here. If my understanding of the technology is accurate this will not work. Blank DVD media have the section of the disk that contains the decryption keys pre-burned. Thus, making a bit for bit copy would still not make a usable copy. Now, what you could do is make a bit for bit copy of a DVD, and then show that it did not work. Then take DeCSS, decrypt everything, burn it to a DVD, and deomnstrate that it also does not provide the ability to make a copy. > - In short: prove by demonstration that copying of the movie on a DVD is by all > means possible without DeCSS, and prove that playing a DVD disc on Linux is > not possible without DeCSS. Also proove that DeCSS does not make it significantly easier to make illegal copies of DVD's. > > If DeCSS can be discredited as copy protection then the whole > > prosecuting case falls flat on its face... > The technical issues involved are really quite straightforward, and I think > the technical side could be easily 'proved' in favor of the defence. In fact if you look at the actual details of the injunction, the Judge defines DeCSS as a copy protection mechanism. If it can be proven to his satisfaction that this is not true, then I should think this case would be thrown out. > I think the problem is: > The defence suffers from lousy _appearance_. Also, the judge seems to be very arrogant about his supposed knowledge of the subject. I could see him having facts about the technology thrown in his face and refusing to accept it because he thinks he knows better. > - association with hackers and obvious hacker-sites like 2600. Hackers have a > bad bad name. 'Respectable' people wanting DVD for Linux should be much > more in the picture. Unfortunately those people weren't sued which is a deliberate tactic by the prosecution. Could their be a friend of the court filing on behalf of the defendants filed by some more respectable people? Perhaps have all of the recently flooded in capital Linux companies share their thoughts on the subject. > - bad language on websites spreading DeCSS, like 'Fuck the MPAA'. That has > already been used AGAINST the defence. This has to stop. In the end I suspect that this won't significantly effect the case, but it wouldn't hurt to remove that stuff and post more rational defenses. > - the defence has been extremely weak. Ok, there was little time, and it has > been orchestrated much that way. But still...no evidence has been presented > at all, and the plaintiffs came with all kinds of evidence, mostly circum > stantial, or purely emotional, like "see they have Fuck the MPAA on their > websites". >From what I've read of the injunction ruling, a number of factors were hurting the defense: 1) The judge does not understand the nature of the technology and thinks he does understand it. He refuses to let the defense explain it to him because he doesn't like feeling stupid. 2) The judge sees these people as Crackers/Pirates and is treating them as he believes pre-established criminals should be treated. 3) The lawyers for the defense did not have the time necessary to put together a useful defense. Frankly though I think the injunction would have happened irregardless for the same reason that the injunction in California is in effect. Essentially the risk of harm to the MPAA is much higher than to that of defendants. Therefor it makes sense to take the cautious approach until there is more time to formaly review the evidence and make a ruling. > - Trying to prove that DeCSS is a form of free speech is not very convincing > even to me. > It would be much better to argue that the whole of the Open Source > movement is in the spirit of free speech. Freedom to use and effectively make > your own technology anyway you choose might count as freedom of expression. > Argueing that DeCSS is needed as a part of a program that is a form of > expression, the act of giving a DVD playing application to the community, > that could be defended. I think the first amendment approach is going to annoy this judge. He seems the type who is tired of having every action on earth defended by the first amendment. Three points need to be made: 1) If the DMCA was constitutional, DeCSS would not violate it because the reverse engineering was done for purposes of insuring compatbility between systems which explicitly permitted by the legislation. This is the most important and easy to proove point. 2) The DMCA is not constitutional because the long standing interpretations of copyright law in the constitution make a bargain with copyright holders. The agreement is that by being given a monopoly on the sale of published works, they give up two concessions. The first is that the copyright has a time limit, the second is the fair use clause. It is consider perfectly okay for you to make a copy of a CD you made for your own use, it is also okay for you to backup some software on your computer (in fact it is a really good idea). So why is it reasonable for the DMCA to forbid users from bypassing schemes that prevent this previously established right? 3) CSS is not a copy protection scheme, but rather a scheme to enforce price controls and to control/monpolize the market for movies. By restricting the ability for consumers to play DVD's only on properly licensed platforms, and by including in that license the restrictions of regional encoding, the industry can artifically inflate the price of movies. > - Let the corporates look bad, show how they try to limit free speech and > criticism of their products. How is the MPAA limiting free speech and criticism of their products? > - How come that Ralph Nader is not into this case ? He should appear in the > courtroom, presenting some kind of Kickass arguments for the defence. > Now that would appear good. Nah, Ralph Nader tends to piss off a lot of people, and this judge seems the type to have issues with somebody like Ralph. > I think that this case cannot be won purely on technical grounds, because > a. The judge is clearly prejudiced; > b. The law is not very fair; > c. Legal and technical people do not really speak the same language. > But the technical side of the defence should be rock solid. I think that the judge being prejudiced is going to be the toughest issue to work around. The defense has the unvenviable task of trying to explain technical details to a Judge who thinks he understands them and does not. The defense needs to make an effort to make the judge feel like he is smart and all knowing while at the same time, they change his perspective about the nature of this technology. This case hinges on the fundamental understanding of what can and cannot be done with the technology and how it relates to copyright infringement. If it can be explained concisely without making the judge feel stupid, we've got a chance. I get the suspicion though that this one may have to get won in appeals. ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 13:06:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA08059 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:06:44 -0500 Received: from dial225.roadrunner.com (dial225.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08055 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:06:41 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial225.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01412 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:09:28 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:09:26 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000214110926.A1184@localhost> References: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> <20000213222213.T15762@duskglow.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000213222213.T15762@duskglow.com>; from Russell Miller on Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:22:14PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:22:14PM -0800, Russell Miller wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:47:11PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > but the issue runs deeper than this. The CSS "encryption" method is a > > mechanism to prevent reading or viewing of copyright material. It does > > not address the issue of copying at all. Make a bit-for-bit copy of a > > DVD, and the copy may be played in a DVD player just as well as the original > > > In fairness, most DVD recordable disks are shipped with that space burnt out. > This doesn't mean the keys can't be placed elsewhere - just that the players > won't read the keys in other locations. IS this a form of collusion in the > market - preventing people from creating their own DVD disks with their own > content? > > The firmware is also built not to transfer those keys in most players - though > it's relatively easy to get around that... just update the flash. Not to be pedantic, but you have mentioned two measures *other than CSS* that might (and I stress might) hinder copying. I think my original statement that CSS has nothing *what so ever* to do with copying it true. I think the defense should emphasize this point. Your point about collusion is well taken. I'm still thinking about it. > > Chinese texts. Now substitute "Content Scrambling System" for "Chinese", > > and as far as copyright is concerned, we have a perfect analogy. > > > Also, in fairness, Chinese does not require a special key to decode. Yes, Chinese is more like a substitution cypher than CSS; that is why I added the caveat, "as far as copyright is concerned". The connection between unknown languages and encryption is a deep one. One example of this connection was the use of Navajo code-talkers during WWII by the U.S. Marines. If the defense wanted to makes use of this connection, I think this and other examples would make it very difficult for the court to dismiss this line or argument: decrypting CSS is similar to learning a new language. Both allow one to read and comprehend expressive material, neither one indicates an intent to illegally duplicate. > One of the reasons that the DVD CSS exists is to keep people from reading the > content and copying it to a file, converting it, and uploading it. Which is > essentially a moot point, considering that if you can get access to the > digital stream ANYWHERE in the computer, then you've got the data. You just > need to get to it somewhere past the decryption stage. Here we may disagree. Decryption is only necessary to read the encrypted data, not duplicate it. Duplication requires no decryption. The fact that the designers of CSS where thinking of some particular process they wanted to prevent does not mean that they addressed the threat model. Apparently, the CSS designers may have been trying to prevent the duplication of an unencrypted version (as Miller points out, it doesn't do this), which is pointless because even if you could do this (you can't), it would still be possible to copy the encrypted version. Unless you are going to prevent everyone, everywhere from reading (i.e. decrypting) the data, then there will be a way to get your hands on the cryptographic keys. But this is getting far afield from the right to read, we are back to "what purpose does CSS server?" Answer: it allows one to monopolize the market for play-back and recording devices. It is simply irrelevant to the issue of illegal duplication. > I agree here. This comes down to: what license do you have to the content > once you purchase it? Are you purchasing the content? Or the right to read it > only in the way the media distributors approve? If it's the latter, is that > legal? If it's legal, is it constitutional? And do the content providers > have the right to impose those kinds of restrictions, locking out paying > customers from viewing content in the way they prefer? In this case the Digital Millenium Copyright Act takes the issue of licensing out the space of contract betweeen two private parties, and uses state power to make some access illegal. Reading is a subset of access. Since when should the state be making reading illegal? I think there is an enormous amount of ground we might cover on the licensing of copyrighted work, but I'll leave that alone for now. That way this post can stay (relatively) on-topic: the right to read. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 13:07:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA08403 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:07:49 -0500 Received: from dial225.roadrunner.com (dial225.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08385 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:07:46 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial225.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01419 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:10:19 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:10:18 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000214111018.B1184@localhost> References: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> <4.1.20000214014827.020b27a0@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000214014827.020b27a0@law.harvard.edu>; from Wendy Seltzer on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:42:47AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:42:47AM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > While I like the right to read, there is always the right not to publish. > In copyright, fair use is the compromise you give up for the > government-granted monopoly when you do publish. From where can we draw a > more absolute right to read? First, I think that there are three issues. One is, "where do we draw a right to read?", another is that "to promote progress" in the copyright clause (to my mind) gives no authority to limit reading. Any limitation on reading would be detrimental to "progress." Third, the right not to publish: the copyright holder has already chosen to publish a movie on DVD. There is no antagonism between the right to read and the right not to publish in this case. There are four points about an ultimate basis for the right to read that I can think of now: (1) The court decisions (in Virigina?) that prohibit "filtering" of speech in libraries may provide some precedent. In deCSS, the gov't is not selecting the speech to filter, but it does lend it's authority, rather than relying on contract, to prohibit reading. (2) Amendment I says nothing about the right to read, but the right to speak would seem to imply a right to listen/read. (3) Amendment X. The right to read is something people have traditionally enjoyed. (4) Scholarly freedom. I don't believe that this is identical to fair use, because we are not talking about the right of a scholar to copy, but the right to read those copies, or the original. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 13:08:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA08715 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:08:39 -0500 Received: from dial225.roadrunner.com (dial225.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08684 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:08:34 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial225.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01428 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:11:28 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:11:27 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] This DVD is for private home viewing only Message-ID: <20000214111127.C1184@localhost> References: <20000214070942.21082.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000214070942.21082.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 11:09:42PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 11:09 PM 2/13/00 -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >"This DVD is for private home viewing only" I agree that this statement on the DVD is important, because it shows that the copyright holder recognizes that you bought the movie to view it, and it makes no mention of the mechanism of viewing. One the other hand, I think one should view "This DVD is for private home viewing only" not as a grant of authority to view at home, but as an attempt to revoke all rights to view in other venues. If you buy something expressive like a book or a movie, I contend that you have a *right* to read or view it. The copyright holder may have the right to regulate public display because "performance" of music is regulated (but not prohibited) under copyright. I don't know the specifics of "performance" well enough to comment on them in further detail. Even if the copyright owner cannot grant you the right to view the DVD because you already have that right, the copyright holder has not even made a claim that they can regulate home viewing under 1201(a)(3)(A). Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 13:09:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09537 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:09:47 -0500 Received: from lysithea.eastgw.xerox.com (root@lysithea.xerox.com [208.140.33.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09519 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:09:46 -0500 Received: from cantorbh1.can.xerox.com (cantorbh1.can.xerox.com [13.226.4.150]) by lysithea.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18242 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:09:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by cantorbh1.can.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:08:14 -0500 Message-ID: <01C7F8610CB2D1119B1500805F9F5E8DE8A491@cantorms2.can.xerox.com> From: "Haeh, George" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse engineering in Sony vs. Con nectix Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:09:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > MPAA, > > Read and weep. > > Connectix read the Sony Playstation BIOS into their computers, > disassembled the code, ran it with Playstation games under debuggers in a > very thorough reverse engineering effort and produced a virtual > playstation emulator -- totally legally. > As a non-lawyer I see no legal difference between reverse engineering Playstations and DVD players. > http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/64ebd72fd6ca63e2882566fd00 > 0980b2/06d1e0893fdee11688256881006296b8?OpenDocument > > George From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 13:13:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10997 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:13:13 -0500 Received: from dial225.roadrunner.com (dial225.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10951 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:13:10 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial225.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01444 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:16:05 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:16:04 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]: GPL: This DVD is for private home viewing only Message-ID: <20000214111604.A1440@localhost> References: <20000214164441.9480.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000214164441.9480.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 08:44:41AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 08:44:41AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > 1201(a)(2)(B) DeCSS has no commercial purpose at all, since it's GPL. I don't believe this part would hold up. The GPL is compatible with commerce. The GPL's purpose is to preserve the right to program, regardless of whether or not that occurs in a commerical setting. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 13:19:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14018 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:19:49 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA13017 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:17:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 12551 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 17:00:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214170001.12550.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:00:01 PST Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:00:01 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] introduction and others .. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Henti Smith wrote: > My name is Henti Smith .. I live in South Africa .. and I use linux > everyday as my personal OS of choice and at work. > > I'm dating a lawyer ( South African ) and hopefully I'll get her > involved as well. Wow. Just out of curiosity, what does a DVD cost there? I ask, because my theory is that the region codes are a price-fixing device. I would just love to see folks file suit in 100+ countries for price-fixing. > I'm very interrested in see'ing how all this applies to South Africa. > I'm also very techinical so hopefully I can add something to > discussion in general but prolly very little in acual > law :) We need to figure out some software projects that will make it easier for people to participate in open source legal forums. Anybody have ideas? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 13:25:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA16119 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:25:36 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA16105 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:25:34 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08283 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:31:03 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:31:03 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] A good site structure? (was Re: Introduction and others) Message-ID: <20000214103103.C8068@duskglow.com> References: <20000214170001.12550.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1" X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000214170001.12550.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:00:01AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:00:01AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >=20 > We need to figure out some software projects that will make it easier > for people to participate in open source legal forums. Anybody have > ideas? > =20 There should be some building blocks out there now, for example, the midgard system. It just needs to be expanded a bit to include application-specific details. When you come right down to it, it'd be nothing more than a document-serving site with comments... kinda like slashdot, but more specialized. In a ideal situation, lawyers would post drafts, or there'd be a collaboration group over something which the result would then be posted, and hammered at... Or it could be that it would be a dynamic version-control system in concert with what I described above... someone posts something and all changes are noted in different typefaces and voted on... Lots of possibilities. --Russell > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com --=20 Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.2 iQA/AwUBOKhJ5bT+vBg/iHxKEQKylgCeLoLh+hdvagyOGSo+IWLQYlRcbsQAoMiI MzjdpFeSJrupWGDF5ORUUtFD =S5AH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 13:58:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01874 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:58:24 -0500 Received: from dial126.roadrunner.com (dial126.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.126]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA01871 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:58:21 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial126.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01637 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:01:16 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:01:15 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000214120115.A1490@localhost> References: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> <4.1.20000214014827.020b27a0@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000214014827.020b27a0@law.harvard.edu>; from Wendy Seltzer on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:42:47AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:42:47AM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > In copyright, fair use is the compromise you give up for the > government-granted monopoly when you do publish. Wow! I always thought that fair use was the portion of a person's inherent right to copy that the gov't could not bargain away because it was so detrimental to reading, scholarship, criticism, education, etc. if one is deprived of *all* rights to copy a work. I was under the impression that the copyright bargain was: the public gives up the universal right to copy for limited times in exchange for progress of the useful arts and science. Is this incorrect? Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 14:20:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14216 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:20:04 -0500 Received: from crcst351.netaddress.usa.net (crcst351.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.23.96]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA14213 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:19:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 5598 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2000 19:20:04 -0000 Received: from wwcst272.netaddress.usa.net (204.68.23.17) by outbound.netaddress.usa.net with SMTP; 14 Feb 2000 19:20:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 27775 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 19:20:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214192003.27774.qmail@wwcst272.netaddress.usa.net> Received: from 204.68.23.17 by wwcst272 for [208.143.43.129] via web-mailer(M3.3.1.96) on Mon Feb 14 19:20:03 GMT 2000 Date: 14 Feb 00 13:20:03 CST From: Zach Kenyon To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [[dvd-discuss] A good site structure? (was Re: Introduction and others)] X-Mailer: USANET web-mailer (M3.3.1.96) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id OAA14214 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Russell Miller wrote: > When you come right down to it, it'd be nothing more than a > document-serving site with comments... kinda like slashdot, but more > specialized. IMHO, SLASH could be easily customized for this... > In a ideal situation, lawyers would post drafts, or there'd be a > collaboration group over something which the result would then be > posted, and hammered at... > Or it could be that it would be a dynamic version-control system in > concert with what I described above... someone posts something and all > changes are noted in different typefaces and voted on... Let's look at Slashdot as an example: >>lawyers would post drafts<< Articles on /. Maybe something like /drafts.pl?did=name_of_draft >>or there'd be a collaboration group over something which the result >>would then be posted<< Those discussions could happen in the open forums. Go here (http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=moderation) to see how this would work. Have a mini-forum for initial discussion, then post to the main page for peer review after things have been hammered out. >> Or it could be that it would be a dynamic version-control system in >>concert with what I described above... someone posts something and all >>changes are noted in different typefaces and voted on...<< Use the /. update principal. Have all differences posted in a different font (fairly easy to do) and the entirety of the draft as the article body. Of course, I could be off my rocker, but I have been reading the slashcode mailing list (since SLASH 0.9.0) and a great majority of the bugs seem to have been squashed ar worked around. Check out http://www.slashcode.com for more info... --Jedi Hacker(apprentice) and Code Poet ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 14:21:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14759 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:21:33 -0500 Received: from mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (mailhub1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.247.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14756 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:21:32 -0500 Received: from shell1.ncal.verio.com (gwachob@shell1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.248.254]) by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA15211 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:21:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (gwachob@localhost) by shell1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27070 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:21:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: shell1. ncal.verio.com: gwachob owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:21:43 -0800 (PST) From: Gabe Wachob To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read In-Reply-To: <20000214120115.A1490@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:42:47AM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > In copyright, fair use is the compromise you give up for the > > government-granted monopoly when you do publish. > > Wow! > > I always thought that fair use was the portion of a person's > inherent right to copy that the gov't could not bargain away > because it was so detrimental to reading, scholarship, criticism, > education, etc. if one is deprived of *all* rights to copy a > work. Copyright is a "social contract" between authors of works and the public. The end goal is to promote as wide dissemination of the work as possible. A second goal is to pay authors for their work based on a theory that people should, in general, get paid for their work (as a general moral point). The contract says that the government will grant and enforce certain rights (limited, mind you) in the work for the purpose of promotion of the work, in exchange for the public right to use the work in certain "fair use" situations, and for any situation after a certain limited time (public domain). The problem is that this subtlety is completely lost on lawmakers who only hear the well-paid voices of lobbyists and industry groups. When presented with the notion that laws like the DMCA only protect property like many other laws do, then lawmakers see the "easy" answer -- protect IP more, because there is nothing wrong with protecting people's property!! Well, the problem is that the propety that these lawmakers are thinking of is very different than Intellectual Property. I think it is here that the most education and publicity needs to be focused. Why is IP different from "physical property" that we think of and why is taking one without explicit permission not always a bad thing while taking the other almost always is. Why is banning anticircumvention technology not like banning lock-picking equipment? The answers seem obvious to me and probably to most people on this list, but I would suggest that due to the $$ and relative economic complexity of the landscape surrounding IP, these answers are not obvious at all to those decisionmakers in Washington and the state legislatures (UCITA is very very closely related in principle). Its both an anti-lobbying and education effort. I hope this forum can be useful towards that direction. > I was under the impression that the copyright bargain was: the > public gives up the universal right to copy for limited times > in exchange for progress of the useful arts and science. Thats it in a nutshell. -Gabe ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gabe Wachob - http://www.aimnet.com/~gwachob As of today, the U.S. Constitution has been in force for 77,303 days When this message was sent, 3,842,503 seconds have passed in Y2K From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 14:29:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20166 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:29:04 -0500 Received: from smtp1.fas.harvard.edu (root@smtp1.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.30.81]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20163 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:29:03 -0500 Received: from is08.fas.harvard.edu (IDENT:gabriel@is08.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.30.108]) by smtp1.fas.harvard.edu with ESMTP id OAA14053; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by is08.fas.harvard.edu with ESMTP id OAA05153; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:29:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:29:19 -0500 (EST) From: Raefer Gabriel To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A good site structure? (was Re: Introduction and others) In-Reply-To: <20000214103103.C8068@duskglow.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I would definitely be interested in collaborating on such a software project, if there is sufficient interest from the legal community and the software community. This DVD-discussion majordomo list is great, but it would be nicer to have a chatroom/IRC channel, document sharing/attachment, possible groupware features (I'm thinking document posting and collaboration, a la drivespace.com). Raefer Gabriel On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Russell Miller wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:00:01AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > We need to figure out some software projects that will make it easier > > for people to participate in open source legal forums. Anybody have > > ideas? > > > There should be some building blocks out there now, for example, the midgard > system. It just needs to be expanded a bit to include application-specific > details. > > When you come right down to it, it'd be nothing more than a document-serving > site with comments... kinda like slashdot, but more specialized. In a ideal > situation, lawyers would post drafts, or there'd be a collaboration group > over something which the result would then be posted, and hammered at... > > Or it could be that it would be a dynamic version-control system in concert > with what I described above... someone posts something and all changes are > noted in different typefaces and voted on... > > Lots of possibilities. > > --Russell > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > > http://im.yahoo.com > > -- > Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent > the views of any of my clients. > > http://www.duskglow.com > http://www.singlegeek.com > http://www.whathaveyoudone.org > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 14:38:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA24929 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:38:53 -0500 Received: from mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (mailhub1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.247.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA24926 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:38:52 -0500 Received: from shell1.ncal.verio.com (gwachob@shell1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.248.254]) by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA23766 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:39:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (gwachob@localhost) by shell1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28500 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:39:00 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: shell1. ncal.verio.com: gwachob owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:38:59 -0800 (PST) From: Gabe Wachob To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [[dvd-discuss] A good site structure? (was Re: Introduction and others)] In-Reply-To: <20000214192003.27774.qmail@wwcst272.netaddress.usa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu How about a wikiwiki site? There are a bunch of them. The original WikiWiki site: http://www.c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?WikiWikiWeb ALso, putting together on top of Zope (http://www.zope.org) wouldn't be terribly difficult. -Gabe On 14 Feb 2000, Zach Kenyon wrote: > Russell Miller wrote: > > > When you come right down to it, it'd be nothing more than a > > document-serving site with comments... kinda like slashdot, but more > > specialized. > > IMHO, SLASH could be easily customized for this... > > > In a ideal situation, lawyers would post drafts, or there'd be a > > collaboration group over something which the result would then be > > posted, and hammered at... > > Or it could be that it would be a dynamic version-control system in > > concert with what I described above... someone posts something and all > > changes are noted in different typefaces and voted on... > > Let's look at Slashdot as an example: > >>lawyers would post drafts<< > Articles on /. Maybe something like /drafts.pl?did=name_of_draft > > >>or there'd be a collaboration group over something which the result >>would > then be posted<< > Those discussions could happen in the open forums. Go here > (http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=moderation) to see how this would > work. Have a mini-forum for initial discussion, then post to the main page > for peer review after things have been hammered out. > > >> Or it could be that it would be a dynamic version-control system in > >>concert with what I described above... someone posts something and all > >>changes are noted in different typefaces and voted on...<< > > Use the /. update principal. Have all differences posted in a different font > (fairly easy to do) and the entirety of the draft as the article body. > > Of course, I could be off my rocker, but I have been reading the slashcode > mailing list (since SLASH 0.9.0) and a great majority of the bugs seem to have > been squashed ar worked around. Check out http://www.slashcode.com for more > info... > > > --Jedi Hacker(apprentice) and Code Poet > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gabe Wachob - http://www.aimnet.com/~gwachob As of today, the U.S. Constitution has been in force for 77,303 days When this message was sent, 3,843,540 seconds have passed in Y2K From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 14:57:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA32319 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:57:02 -0500 Received: from smtp3.fas.harvard.edu (root@smtp3.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.30.83]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA32316 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:57:01 -0500 Received: from is08.fas.harvard.edu (IDENT:gabriel@is08.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.30.108]) by smtp3.fas.harvard.edu with ESMTP id OAA09286; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by is08.fas.harvard.edu with ESMTP id OAA23089; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:57:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:57:16 -0500 (EST) From: Raefer Gabriel To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Cease and desist... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Just wanted to throw this out there for everyone, as there seems to be a fair deal of thoughtful discussion and debate going on on this list. I have been running an ftp mirror of the LiViD, CSS-auth and DeCSS software on my computer here at Harvard (I am an undergraduate here) for a few weeks now. Harvard's general counsel just recently received a cease-and-desist letter from the MPAA citing the Jan. 20th districtcourt Preliminary Injunction, which they claim "found that DeCSS was a prohibited circumvention device within the meaning of s1201(a)(2)." It also quotes the Injunction as stating that: trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that: (i) primarily designed or producted for the purpose of circumventing, or circumvention the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure that effectively controls the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof... Now, this brings up a couple of issues in my mind. First of all, the description of "any technological measure" actually describes literally any licensed or unlicensed implementation of CSS related protocols, to the best of my understanding. Hence, this injunction would apply just as much to companies selling licensed, closed DVD playing software for windows as it does to me, distributing a number of software packages via FTP. The argument that this would apply only to DeCSS seems to rest solely on the assumption that DeCSS is primary for "circumventing" whereas legal players are primary for some other purpose. However the definition of circumvention is entirely unclear to me, as it seems to be to many other posters to this email list, who realize that the distinction between viewing and circumventing is one of semantics and intent, and relates more to monopoly rights and content control than to piracy. Secondly, the dependent clause describing the "plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can" do any of a litany of things with the copyrighted material fails entirely to address the main issue of _viewing_ or _playing_ the copyrighted material, and thereby entirely ignores Fair Use, or the rights of the DVD purchasers. My apologies, as I realize my arguments are not entirely new or creative, but I just wished to ground them in the explicit claims that the MPAA is making in their current scare-letters. Now, I am not clear that the New York District Court Preliminary Injunction can even be applied to me in this way, and I am going to discuss that with some knowledgable folk who will hopefully clarify this for me. Additionally, I am unclear whether they are specifically referring in their letter to the DeCSS zip file and the executable and DLLs it contains, or to the entirety of my software archive, as there is no clarification in the letter of that, which I will use as a delaying tactic, should Harvard's general counsel try to make me shut down my FTP site, which appears quite possible. I will be putting up my correspondence with Allan Ryan, General Counsel of Harvard University, as well as the letter directed to him regarding my FTP site which was passed along to me, on my web page at http://gabriel.student.harvard.edu as soon as I get a chance, either this afternoon or evening, if you're curious to see the whole context of the exchange. Hopefully their letter's content isn't protected by CSS. :) Raefer Gabriel From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 14:58:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00602 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:58:57 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.128.1.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA00599 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:58:56 -0500 Received: from fileroom ([155.36.46.11]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA15915 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:59:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <07a101bf7725$423a5e40$0b2e249b@Synapse> From: "Jonathan Borden" To: References: <4.1.20000214014827.020b27a0@law.harvard.edu> Subject: Library of Congress: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:54:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The DMCA specifically allows the librarian of congress to exlude specific categories of works from the DMCA prohibition. The LOC is allowed to make this judgement in the public's interest (though you may wish to read the DMCA itself for details, link below). The LOC is requesting comments in regard to the DMCA: " Notice of Inquiry published in the Federal Register November 24, 1999. Submissions that are not sent in the proper format can not be accepted as a comment and will not be posted on the Copyright Office's web site. You may, however, re-submit an acceptable comment in the format detailed below. As you will note in the following requirements, the Copyright Office has broadened the acceptable file formats it will accept as attachments to the email message by now including ASCII text file attachments and RTF file attachments. If you wish to submit a comment electronically, the following format is required: The email message must contain: >Your name; >If you are submitting on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization; >Your address; >Your phone number; >Your email address; >Your fax number (if any); AND >The Comment itself must be attached to the email message as a separate file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF); or Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier; or WordPerfect 7 or earlier; or RTF format; or ASCII text format. The Comment itself, at a minimum, must include your name. To be considered, your comment must comply with the above format and informational requirements and sent to "1201@loc.gov" no later than Thursday, February 17, 2000. (Please note that we have extended the comment and reply comment deadlines by one week.) For the requirements on other electronic and print options for filing comments, please check the Notice of Inquiry on our web site at: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html Rob Kasunic Senior Attorney-Advisor Office of the General Counsel U.S. Copyright Office " Jonathan Borden ----- Original Message ----- From: Wendy Seltzer To: Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 3:42 AM Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read > It appears to me that access controls substitute a scheme like contract for > that of copyright, forcing everyone who wants to read a work to accept a > very restrictive license. In contract, there would be various checks on > the power of the writer of such a mass license (until UCC2B, at least) and > only people who had actually agreed to the contract would be bound. > Copyright binds everyone, but has the limitations of fair use and first sale. > > The problem here is that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically > prohibits the use of tools to "circumvent a technological measure that > effectively controls _access_ to a work." It "solves" the license problem > by subjecting _everyone_ to the strrict terms the provider of an > access-control technology wants to impose, without even the limited > privileges copyright gave. I'd say there's a strong argument that the > move from copy-control to access-control was not fully enough considered to > be justified. For your example though, under current law, learning Chinese > could be held illegal under the DMCA (if the translation were otherwise an > "effective" access control). > > At 10:47 PM 2/13/00 -0700, fenimore@roadrunner.com wrote: > >Fair use is mentioned on the website > , > >but the issue runs deeper than this. The CSS "encryption" method is a > >mechanism to prevent reading or viewing of copyright material. It does > >not address the issue of copying at all. Make a bit-for-bit copy of a > >DVD, and the copy may be played in a DVD player just as well as the original. > > > >I have an analogy I like, and I'll subject you to it. Unknown languanges > >are a lot like encryption. If I don't comprehend Chinese, that has no > >effect on my ability to photocopy Chinese-language documents. Conversely, > >if I study Chinese, that indicates an intent to read Chinese texts, it > >says nothing either way about my intent to illegally duplicate copyrighted > >Chinese texts. Now substitute "Content Scrambling System" for "Chinese", > >and as far as copyright is concerned, we have a perfect analogy. > > While I like the right to read, there is always the right not to publish. > In copyright, fair use is the compromise you give up for the > government-granted monopoly when you do publish. From where can we draw a > more absolute right to read? > > >The right to read should be axiomatic to both copyright law and to the First > >Amendment. CSS is an anti-reading measure, not an anti-duplication measure. > >Claiming that copyright law should allow the regulation of *reading* seems > >an extremely hard row to hoe. > > --Wendy > --- > Wendy Seltzer > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:05:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03731 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:05:51 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03728 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:05:50 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08530 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:11:18 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:11:18 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Cease and desist... Message-ID: <20000214121118.D8068@duskglow.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mojUlQ0s9EVzWg2t" X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from gabriel@fas.harvard.edu on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 02:57:16PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --mojUlQ0s9EVzWg2t Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Harvard is in Massachusetts, is it not, and therefore not constrained under any applicable injunctions? --Russell --=20 Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org --mojUlQ0s9EVzWg2t Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.2 iQA/AwUBOKhhZLT+vBg/iHxKEQL26ACg4tdRs9pDJA69xiI83lRcGfgUlHoAoL6y QmJi4+hCN1tDbhSrsVx30Ex2 =gbv2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mojUlQ0s9EVzWg2t-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:10:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA07020 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:10:59 -0500 Received: from mailcity.com (fes-qout.whowhere.com [209.1.236.7]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA06987 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:10:57 -0500 Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by mailcity.com; Mon Feb 14 12:10:23 2000 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:10:23 -0800 From: "jensen morse" Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sent-Mail: on X-Mailer: MailCity Service Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts X-Sender-Ip: 24.14.31.125 Organization: MailCity (http://www.mailcity.lycos.com:80) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Frankly though I think the injunction would have happened irregardless for the same >reason that the injunction in California is in effect. Essentially the risk of harm >to the MPAA is much higher than to that of defendants. Therefor it makes sense to >take the cautious approach until there is more time to formaly review the evidence >and make a ruling. The reasoning and procedure for an injunction is that there is suffient proof to meet the evidentury burden that the plaintiff will ultimatley win the case, as interpreted at the judges discretion. And I do agree I think that this will more likely be won on appeal, the appeals courts are far more condusive to legitimate arguments. MailCity. Secure Email Anywhere, Anytime! http://www.mailcity.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:13:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA08271 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:13:40 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA08267 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:13:39 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08576 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:19:08 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:19:08 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Message-ID: <20000214121908.E8068@duskglow.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eHhjakXzOLJAF9wJ" X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from evault@mailcity.com on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 12:10:23PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --eHhjakXzOLJAF9wJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would imagine one of the reasons for this is th fact that it is a board of judges rather than just one - making the prejudices of one judge much le= ss damaging. --Russell On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 12:10:23PM -0800, jensen morse wrote: >=20 > The reasoning and procedure for an injunction is that there is suffient p= roof to meet the evidentury burden that the plaintiff will ultimatley win t= he case, as interpreted at the judges discretion. >=20 > And I do agree I think that this will more likely be won on appeal, the a= ppeals courts are far more condusive to legitimate arguments. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > MailCity. Secure Email Anywhere, Anytime! > http://www.mailcity.com --=20 Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org --eHhjakXzOLJAF9wJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.2 iQA/AwUBOKhjOrT+vBg/iHxKEQLbEQCgu7MjSrKFZfWAWtvi/7y6SIvQvDsAoJxY T+LkZ/Boq35oG1tKEyoexby0 =8s8l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eHhjakXzOLJAF9wJ-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:16:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA09765 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:16:27 -0500 Received: from mailcity.com (fes-qout.whowhere.com [209.1.236.7]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA09760 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:16:21 -0500 Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by mailcity.com; Mon Feb 14 12:15:40 2000 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:15:40 -0800 From: "jensen morse" Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sent-Mail: on X-Mailer: MailCity Service Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse engineering in Sony vs. Connectix X-Sender-Ip: 24.14.31.125 Organization: MailCity (http://www.mailcity.lycos.com:80) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:09:43 Haeh, George wrote: >> MPAA, >> >> Read and weep. >> >> Connectix read the Sony Playstation BIOS into their computers, >> disassembled the code, ran it with Playstation games under debuggers in a >> very thorough reverse engineering effort and produced a virtual >> playstation emulator -- totally legally. >> >As a non-lawyer I see no legal difference between reverse engineering >Playstations and DVD players. > >> http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/64ebd72fd6ca63e2882566fd00 >> 0980b2/06d1e0893fdee11688256881006296b8?OpenDocument >> >> George One of the first points made is that sonys bios is not an "access control measure" and such does not wander into the DMCA territory as directly as css. Given that the cases are extremely similiar and certainly the fact that the 9th circuit of appeals lambasted the lower court in saying that reverse engineering for the sake of interoperability is definetly allowable by law, which is a 180 degree turnaroud from the notions set forth in the original injuction. > MailCity. Secure Email Anywhere, Anytime! http://www.mailcity.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:19:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10938 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:19:05 -0500 Received: from dial137.roadrunner.com (dial137.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.137]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10904 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:18:59 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial137.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02063 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:21:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:21:47 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Message-ID: <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net>; from Steve Stearns on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:20:43AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 13:25:14PM +0100, Roland Nagtgall wrote: > - Show that the movie can be copied bit for bit from DVD-rom onto > DVD-writable without using DeCSS, giving an encrypted movie on a disc. > Show that the movie can be played on a regular DVD player. > Again, no DeCSS or Linux used here. On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:20:43AM -0600, Steve Stearns wrote: > If my understanding of the technology is accurate this will not > work. Blank DVD media have the section of the disk that contains > the decryption keys pre-burned. Thus, making a bit for bit copy > would still not make a usable copy. Now, what you could do is make > a bit for bit copy of a DVD, and then show that it did not work. > Then take DeCSS, decrypt everything, burn it to a DVD, and > deomnstrate that it also does not provide the ability to make a copy. I think from a legal stand-point we should emphasize that what the MPAA and associates are doing is making bit-for-bit duplication difficult by restricting the availability of truly blank DVDs. In fact they have not prevented the duplication of a movie in encrypted format; they have made it difficult (but not impossible) to put a different piece of data -- the decryption keys -- in a location that will make *viewing* possible in a stock DVD player. (Not impossible because there have to be truly blank DVDs out there to make the legal copies.) (1) One could procure truly blank DVDs, then bit-for-bit really works. (2)(a) Burning the key sectors of a DVD prevents reading (as in "comprehension") of encrypted data, not copying of the encrypted data. (2)(b) One could burn the key sector(s) of a legal copy of a DVD, this would prevent "reading" the legal copy of the copyrighted work in a stock DVD player, but not its duplication. (3) The fact that DeCSS makes it possible to view copies of movies on burned-sector DVDs ("crippled"), does not prove that it is pertinent to the act of copying. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:21:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12024 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:21:44 -0500 Received: from dial137.roadrunner.com (dial137.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.137]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11997 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:21:42 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial137.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02069 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:24:32 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:24:32 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000214132432.C1701@localhost> References: <20000214120115.A1490@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Gabe Wachob on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:21:43AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:21:43AM -0800, Gabe Wachob wrote: > Why is banning anticircumvention technology not like banning > lock-picking equipment? Because one picks locks to steal physical items. One decrypts data to read it. Encryption does not prevent copying, but it does prevent reading. Reading is a right, stealing is not. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:22:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12186 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:22:17 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12181 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:22:16 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id MAA27116 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:22:13 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:22:12 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Library of Congress: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000214122212.Q4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <4.1.20000214014827.020b27a0@law.harvard.edu> <07a101bf7725$423a5e40$0b2e249b@Synapse> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <07a101bf7725$423a5e40$0b2e249b@Synapse>; from jborden@mediaone.net on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 02:54:08PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jonathan Borden writes: > The DMCA specifically allows the librarian of congress to exlude specific > categories of works from the DMCA prohibition. The LOC is allowed to make > this judgement in the public's interest (though you may wish to read the > DMCA itself for details, link below). Everyone should remember that this exception applies to the _act of circumvention_ (which isn't yet illegal, because that part of the DMCA hasn't gone into force yet). It doesn't apply to the distribution of a circumvention device. If the Librarian of Congress granted the broadest possible exception here, it would be legal to circumvent any access control mechanism, but it would still be illegal to distribute a device intended for circumventing access control mechanisms. That means that people who wanted to circumvent these mechanisms, in order to exercise their fair use rights, would be pretty much on their own; roughly speaking, it would be illegal for anyone else to help them. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:32:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA20167 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:32:51 -0500 Received: from smtp2.fas.harvard.edu (root@smtp2.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.30.82]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA20155 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:32:50 -0500 Received: from is06.fas.harvard.edu (IDENT:gabriel@is06.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.30.106]) by smtp2.fas.harvard.edu with ESMTP id PAA19006; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:33:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by is06.fas.harvard.edu with ESMTP id PAA21732; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:33:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:33:05 -0500 (EST) From: Raefer Gabriel To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Library of Congress: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read In-Reply-To: <20000214122212.Q4856@cty-alum.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Jonathan Borden writes: > > Everyone should remember that this exception applies to the _act of > circumvention_ (which isn't yet illegal, because that part of the DMCA > hasn't gone into force yet). > > It doesn't apply to the distribution of a circumvention device. > > If the Librarian of Congress granted the broadest possible exception here, > it would be legal to circumvent any access control mechanism, but it would > still be illegal to distribute a device intended for circumventing access > control mechanisms. > > That means that people who wanted to circumvent these mechanisms, in order > to exercise their fair use rights, would be pretty much on their own; > roughly speaking, it would be illegal for anyone else to help them. Hmm... I am again unsure of what legally constitutes a "device". In particular, I think the wording is something along the lines of "technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof." But does this include pseudocode-style description of algorithms? I suppose it does include executable code, but does it include source code? I see no way whatsoever in which it could include detailed algorithmic descriptions of CSS. Not that this would be a desirable approach, obviously, to countering the MPAA if what you describe is the best possible result, but it is important to understand what precedent there is for interpreting some of these (to my mind) vague prohibitions. Raefer Gabriel From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:39:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23857 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:39:08 -0500 Received: from mailcity.com (fes-qout.whowhere.com [209.1.236.7]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA23854 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:39:07 -0500 Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by mailcity.com; Mon Feb 14 12:38:28 2000 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:38:28 -0800 From: "jensen morse" Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sent-Mail: on X-Mailer: MailCity Service Subject: [dvd-discuss] collaboration system? X-Sender-Ip: 24.14.31.125 Organization: MailCity (http://www.mailcity.lycos.com:80) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I was hoping to have feedback on the possibility of creating a collaboration system talored to our needs from scratch. I have the resources to procure servers or hosting for an asp/database driven system, that seems to me the easieast route for rapid deployment. I just have a few questions 1) is there anything "off the shelf" that meets most or all of our requirements? (slashcode is good but lacking in many areas) 2) what features etc are needed, (detailed list, not generalizations) 3)Any other professional web developers out there willing to help besides me? comments,questions to evault@mailcity.com PS sorry to post this to the open-dvd list but i noticed another discussion earlier on this topic MailCity. Secure Email Anywhere, Anytime! http://www.mailcity.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:41:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA25009 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:41:23 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA25004 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:41:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 29855 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 20:39:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214203956.29853.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:39:56 PST Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:39:56 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I agree with most of what you said, with a couple exceptions: --- Roland Nagtegaal wrote: > - Trying to prove that DeCSS is a form of free speech is not very > convincing even to me. I must take issue with you. Absolutely, source code like DeCSS is speach and derves to have the full weight of the first amendment protection behind it. This is the precise issue in the Bernstein case. Here is the arguement: 1) Code is written in a programming _language_. Such languages are studied by linguists in attempts to understand, classify, and rigorize their expressiveness. 2) PEOPLE use programming languages instead of directly creating machine binaries, for the benefit of PEOPLE. People DO read code, understand the ideas within it, and critique the "style" and ideas. For example, I think it was bad style to 'hardcode' the key in DeCSS - it should be read from a data file to avoid recoding should it change. 3) Code has no direct ability to control a machine. For example, as shipped most windows boxes cannot benefit from the DeCSS source code, because no compiler is shipped with windows. Most people do not have the technical skill to use a compiler, so human knowledge is part of the recipe. Even when they do, the code is supplied as DATA to the compiler, which creates new and separate files which can be executed. The original code may then be discarded and plays no role in the use of the binary. 4) People can read code and if desired express the same ideas in english. Usually this is less concise, because English is not _expressive_ enough. For example. a sketchy translation of DeCSS is "the password is <>." 5) Other subjects, such as mathematics, often benefit from creating their own language to express the constructs in. In fact the law itself has invented many "terms of art" that express ideas more concisely than standard english. 6) Programming languages exist and are studied in some cases without ever actually being executed on computers. Bookstores are full of books with type written code. Computer class, such as algorithms or cryptography, often use computer code to express the subject matter solely for the teaching value (no compiling is ever actually done). This code is read and analyzed solely by humans and not computers in these cases. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:46:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA28646 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:53 -0500 Received: from fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (fb02.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA28549 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:46 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inig29.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.64.73]) by fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA21387 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002142046.PAA21387@fb02.eng00.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:41:13 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Cease and desist... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cryptome received a similar letter from MPAA's anti-piracy unit several days ago, unsigned, and equally filled with bluff, bluster and bullshit (sorry, that's what an attorney called it). For comparison to Rafael's see: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-ccd.htm And a number of responses to the letter, by attorneys and others: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-ccd2.htm A couple of Cryptome URLs are cited as "defendants" in the California case, but until the recent letter nothing has ever come our way from MPAA, DVDCCA, or plaintiff attorneys. It is my understanding that bluff, bluster and bullshit threat is true of some 468 other California "defendants." Cryptome is based in New York, but the New York injunction is applicable only to the three defendants, and the California injunction does not apply at all. One attorney has advised that no attorney would send the MPAA letter we received for fear of suffering sanctions for misrepresentation. BTW, the plaintiff in California is DVD CCA a copy protection enforcement organization set up by MPAA, but MPAA itself is not a party. The California state suit is for trademark violation. The New York federal suit brought by MPAA is for violation of the DMCA's provision against circumvention of copy protection device under DMCA. This was heavily debated in Congress and by interests groups during consideration of DMCA, and the Congressional Record offers a full account which may be worth reviewing to understand the conflict between law and technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 15:51:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:51:16 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30403 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:51:06 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12KSSg-000JVu-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:51:14 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 14 Feb 100 21:51:14 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20000214132432.C1701@localhost> from "Paul Fenimore" at Feb 14, 0 01:24:32 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:21:43AM -0800, Gabe Wachob wrote: > > Why is banning anticircumvention technology not like banning > > lock-picking equipment? > > Because one picks locks to steal physical items. One decrypts > data to read it. Encryption does not prevent copying, but it > does prevent reading. Reading is a right, stealing is not. For that matter is lock-picking equipment actually banned? Wouldn't that mean you couldn't bend paperclips a certain way? Also stealing isn't the only motivation to pick a lock. It's quite possible that someone would want to pick their own lock because they'd lost the key. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 16:00:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA02583 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:00:22 -0500 Received: from mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (mailhub1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.247.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA02520 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:00:20 -0500 Received: from shell1.ncal.verio.com (gwachob@shell1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.248.254]) by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA00136 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:00:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (gwachob@localhost) by shell1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03995 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:00:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: shell1. ncal.verio.com: gwachob owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:00:32 -0800 (PST) From: Gabe Wachob To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hey folks, these were rhetorical questions -- you're making the points I was trying to make with my rhetorical questions. But its good that the answers are eliciting discussion at a level "everyone here can easily understand". -Gabe On Mon, 14 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:21:43AM -0800, Gabe Wachob wrote: > > > Why is banning anticircumvention technology not like banning > > > lock-picking equipment? > > > > Because one picks locks to steal physical items. One decrypts > > data to read it. Encryption does not prevent copying, but it > > does prevent reading. Reading is a right, stealing is not. > > For that matter is lock-picking equipment actually banned? Wouldn't that mean > you couldn't bend paperclips a certain way? Also stealing isn't the only > motivation to pick a lock. It's quite possible that someone would want to > pick their own lock because they'd lost the key. > > Sham > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gabe Wachob - http://www.aimnet.com/~gwachob As of today, the U.S. Constitution has been in force for 77,303 days When this message was sent, 3,848,433 seconds have passed in Y2K From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 16:02:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04101 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:02:50 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04098 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:02:49 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id NAA27213 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:02:35 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:02:35 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000214130235.U4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000214120115.A1490@localhost> <20000214132432.C1701@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000214132432.C1701@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:24:32PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:21:43AM -0800, Gabe Wachob wrote: > > Why is banning anticircumvention technology not like banning > > lock-picking equipment? > > Because one picks locks to steal physical items. That's not really fair. The ability to pick locks has all sorts of legitimate uses. It happens that the most _common_ use of that ability is to facilitate stealing, but there are many other uses (mainly emergencies and situations where someone has lost a key). I've seen lock-picking skills used legitimately to save time and money when a key had been misplaced and people who were supposed to have access were denied access. > One decrypts data to read it. ... and, conversely, the ability to decrypt data has all sorts of illegitimate uses, like spying on people and reading their private e-mail. Any protection device can be used to protect things legitimately or illegitimately, so it's possible to conceive of both legitimate and illegitimate uses for circumvention devices. There are at least three views I know of about what to do about this situation (roughly, John Gilmore's view, Dorothy Denning's old view, and David Brin's view). Sometimes the arguments for some of those views simply _ignore_ the fact that a particular technology can be used in good or bad ways. (Sometimes they argue that it's irrelevant.) -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 16:05:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05470 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:05:08 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA05435 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:05:07 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id NAA27218 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:05:04 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:05:04 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Cease and desist... Message-ID: <20000214130504.V4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200002142046.PAA21387@fb02.eng00.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200002142046.PAA21387@fb02.eng00.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:41:13PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Young writes: > BTW, the plaintiff in California is DVD CCA a copy protection > enforcement organization set up by MPAA, but MPAA itself is > not a party. The California state suit is for trademark violation. Mmmm, "trade secret violation", of course. (Just for the benefit of anyone who has yet to read about that case.) -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 16:26:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA17866 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:26:15 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA17863 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:26:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 17626 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 21:20:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214212056.17625.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:20:56 PST Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:20:56 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]: GPL: This DVD is for private home viewing only To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 08:44:41AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > 1201(a)(2)(B) DeCSS has no commercial purpose at all, since it's > GPL. > > I don't believe this part would hold up. The GPL is compatible with > commerce. The GPL's purpose is to preserve the right to program, > regardless of whether or not that occurs in a commerical setting. I could say the same things about breathing, could I not. :-] GPL clause 2) b): "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." It is true that the GPL allows you to charge "for the physical act of transferring a copy", but this does not override the fact that the source code licence, purpose, and use is forever noncommercial. It only gives the act of distributing the source code commerciallyl significance, not its purpose or use as required to invoke 1201(a)(2)(B). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 16:40:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA28089 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:40:26 -0500 Received: from dial210.roadrunner.com (dial210.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA27939 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:40:23 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial210.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02386 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:43:20 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:43:19 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000214144319.B2098@localhost> References: <20000214120115.A1490@localhost> <20000214132432.C1701@localhost> <20000214130235.U4856@cty-alum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000214130235.U4856@cty-alum.org>; from Seth David Schoen on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:02:35PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:02:35PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:21:43AM -0800, Gabe Wachob wrote: > > > Why is banning anticircumvention technology not like banning > > > lock-picking equipment? > > > > Because one picks locks to steal physical items. > > That's not really fair. Oops. You are correct. Furthermore, the legitimate uses of picking a lock are relevant to the trade-secret part of the case. > > One decrypts data to read it. > > ... and, conversely, the ability to decrypt data has all sorts of > illegitimate uses, like spying on people and reading their private e-mail. Your point that, in general, decryption has both illegitimate and legitimate uses is well taken. Thank you. I take your point to be that my earlier post is flawed. My revised suggestion for a reply should emphasize that one *can* pick a lock legally or illegally. The point is then that reading public data (i.e. published movies) cannot be reasonably said to be illegitimate. I think that the sort of rhetorical questions that Wachob posed are important in this forum because it is very useful if clear (and correct!) answers to them are well-known. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 17:17:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA21466 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:17:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@w129.z208177180.chi-il.dsl.cnc.net [208.177.180.129]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA21463 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:17:23 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13833 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:16:49 -0600 Message-ID: <38A87ED0.FF3EE31@bigbrother.net> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:16:48 -0600 From: Steve Stearns X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > (3) The fact that DeCSS makes it possible to view copies of movies > on burned-sector DVDs ("crippled"), does not prove that it is > pertinent to the act of copying. And actually, if you decrypted the data and then wrote to a DVD where the key storage sector of the disk has been burned, a DVD player would still not be able to play it. The DVD player is expecting to play encrypted data using the keys available on the disk. I suspect (not having the equipment, it's hard for me to do much else) that the DVD player would simply refuse to play the disk, or if it did would not understand the data because it was previously decrypted. ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 17:43:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04704 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:43:35 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04687 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:43:33 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id OAA27328 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:43:29 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:43:29 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Message-ID: <20000214144329.Y4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <38A87ED0.FF3EE31@bigbrother.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <38A87ED0.FF3EE31@bigbrother.net>; from sterno@bigbrother.net on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:16:48PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Stearns writes: > > (3) The fact that DeCSS makes it possible to view copies of movies > > on burned-sector DVDs ("crippled"), does not prove that it is > > pertinent to the act of copying. > > And actually, if you decrypted the data and then wrote to a DVD where the > key storage sector of the disk has been burned, a DVD player would still > not be able to play it. The DVD player is expecting to play encrypted data > using the keys available on the disk. I suspect (not having the equipment, > it's hard for me to do much else) that the DVD player would simply refuse > to play the disk, or if it did would not understand the data because it was > previously decrypted. This has been discussed at great length on other mailing lists. The claim that DeCSS can't be used to make a usable copy of a video onto consumer-grade DVD is most likely not true. DVD video players _do not_ only play encrypted DVDs. There is such a thing as an unencrypted DVD video, and consumer players are capable of playing it. People in Europe confirmed that some video DVDs there are sold without CSS encryption, and still play in consumer hardware. CSS is clearly not a requirement for the DVD video spec. You can probably use DeCSS or equivalent software as part of a larger process to produce an unencrypted video DVD which will play in consumer DVD video players. Nobody has actually tried this, though, because it's a non-trivial process (requiring a fair amount of technical knowledge) and you have to be able to afford a DVD-R drive and media. The intersection of - people who would know how to use DeCSS to copy video DVDs - people who can afford a DVD-R drive - people who want to do this experiment and announce the results has so far been the empty set. :-) People on other lists are probably sick to death of having me re-post this URL, every time I make a small update to my table, but people here on this list probably haven't seen it yet. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/dvdtable.html That's my conjectured reconstruction of how the copy-protection aspect of CSS is organized. (Of course, CSS is an "access control" mechanism, of which copy protection is only one indirect result.) My table is based on the assumption that CSS wouldn't be disclosed or can't be broken, which we know is wrong. VOBs aren't the only media files on a DVD, but I'm using them as shorthand for "useful, unencrypted multimedia and control data" until I actually figure out what _is_ on a video DVD. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 17:51:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07022 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:51:26 -0500 Received: from rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07019 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:51:25 -0500 Received: from bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.226]) by rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA16155 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:51:41 +0100 (MET) Received: (from roland@localhost) by bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01269 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:51:41 +0100 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:51:40 +0100 From: Roland Nagtegaal To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Message-ID: <20000214235140.A1250@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> References: <20000214203956.29853.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000214203956.29853.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 12:39:56PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 12:39:56PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > I agree with most of what you said, with a couple exceptions: > > --- Roland Nagtegaal wrote: > > - Trying to prove that DeCSS is a form of free speech is not very > > convincing even to me. > > I must take issue with you. Absolutely, source code like DeCSS is > speach and derves to have the full weight of the first amendment > protection behind it. This is the precise issue in the Bernstein case. > > Here is the arguement: I understand all this, even agree with you. The problem is, computercode is much more a recipe to do or make something, than it that is speech. A schematic of how a lock works, of a recipe of a cake might be (is also) a form of expression, but the functional aspect weighs more than the free expression, I think. Anyway, it is not important what my view is, but what would convince this judge. I don;t think he can be convinced that DeCSS is free speech. He might be convinced that it is a part of a work (a free DVD player application) that is a form of expression, i.e. a gift to the Linux community to be able to play DVDs. Prohibiting DeCSS would then limit this form of expression. I think that sounds more convincing. Roland From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 17:56:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA08925 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:56:44 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA08922 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:56:43 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.16) with ESMTP id RAA15405 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:57:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA17245; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:56:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:56:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002142256.RAA17245@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts In-Reply-To: <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > (1) One could procure truly blank DVDs, then bit-for-bit really works. If commercial DVD-RW drives will actually write the sectors (it's possible the drive's firmware may refuse, even if the sectors on the physical disk are writable), this works. But it may well be impossible to procure "truly blank" DVD-RWs anyway; IIRC, most consumer DVDs (the ones with encrypted data) are produced by a physically different process than is used by the optically writable media for DVD-RW drives. The way to eliminate this uncertainty is to get an industrial DVD replication setup --- these aren't cheap (the price is generally quoted on forums like slashdot, without attribution, as being in the tens of thousands), but they will allow bit-for-bit copying of encrypted DVDs in very large quantities, at less than a dollar per disk, without needing to break the encryption at all. These are, of course, the setups used by the large-scale industrial pirates on the Pacific rim and elsewhere, who are in fact costing the MPAA's members serious money. (Note that the blanks from these systems will *not* work in an ordinary home DVD-RW). But remember, CSS is not aimed at industrial pirates. It is aimed at preventing *home* copying. I don't see how home copying can really cost them as much as industrial piracy (unless they really expect something like half of the purchasers to make a copy for someone who would have otherwise bought the disk), so you gotta wonder about this sense of priorities. The only way it makes sense to me is by invoking ugly conspiracy theories, but it's also entirely possible that Hollywood is just doing things that don't make much sense. > (2)(a) Burning the key sectors of a DVD prevents reading (as in > "comprehension") of encrypted data, not copying of the encrypted data. But the point of making the copy is presumably to let a non-licensee gain access to the unencrypted version of the data --- which can't be done with an ordinary DVD player unless the keys are in their proper place on the disk. It turns out that the CSS crypto is so shoddy that the data can be recovered anyway with literally a few *seconds* of cryptanalysis on a garden variety PC, but since that certainly does constitute circumvention of a technological measure --- the CSS encryption itself --- which is designed to restrict unauthorized copying, I'm not sure it's anything to hang a legal case on in the context of the DMCA. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 18:06:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA13648 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:06:28 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA13645 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:06:27 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA23076 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:05:17 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04997; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:04:13 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Date: 14 Feb 2000 15:04:03 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 24 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000214132147.B1701@localhost>, Paul Fenimore wrote: > I think from a legal stand-point we should emphasize that what the > MPAA and associates are doing is making bit-for-bit duplication > difficult by restricting the availability of truly blank DVDs. More difficult for your average Joe "I can't program my VCR" Schmoe, yes. But not more difficult for copy pirates. Large-scale piracy is not affected. Pirates don't buy consumer-grade blank DVD's (with the zeroed-out key sector), but rather, they press their own and consequently are unlikely to be affected by CSS or restrictions on consumer-grade blank DVD's and so forth. So, large-scale piracy -- the kind that the DVDCCA and MPAA were emphasizing in their briefs -- is not made substantially easier by DeCSS, as far as I can see. The dirty little secret is that nothing in the DVD security architecture ever made large-scale piracy terribly difficult. In fact, I'd go much farther than you have. I'd argue that the revelation of the CSS flaws shows that the DVD security architecture is so bad that it cannot even be considered an "effective access control device" (emphasis on the "effective"). And that's relevant, if you care about the DMCA. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 18:19:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA19137 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:19:29 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA19108 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:19:28 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA23111 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:18:18 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05019; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:17:14 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Date: 14 Feb 2000 15:16:08 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 46 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88a2bo$4sq$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <200002142256.RAA17245@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <200002142256.RAA17245@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>, Robert S. Thau wrote: > The way to eliminate this uncertainty is to get an industrial DVD > replication setup --- these aren't cheap (the price is generally > quoted on forums like slashdot, without attribution, as being in the > tens of thousands), but they will allow bit-for-bit copying of > encrypted DVDs in very large quantities, at less than a dollar per > disk, without needing to break the encryption at all. These are, of > course, the setups used by the large-scale industrial pirates on the > Pacific rim and elsewhere, who are in fact costing the MPAA's members > serious money. (Note that the blanks from these systems will *not* > work in an ordinary home DVD-RW). Yes. And, I'm told that this is almost exactly the same setup required for piracy of CD's. This was apparently a design consideration, so that existing CD-pressing factories could be re-tooled to press DVD's with minimum cost. But it also has implications for piracy, because there are apparently a large number of pirates out there who already have CD-pressing equipment. This may mean that they will find it easy to upgrade their CD-piracy equipment to pirate DVD's. Yikes. > But remember, CSS is not aimed at industrial pirates. It is aimed at > preventing *home* copying. Yeah, that's my interpretation, too. But remember that the DVDCCA and MPAA don't say that in their legal briefs, and the way they allege "immediate and irreparable harm", I could imagine that many readers could easily overlook this distinction unless it were specifically pointed out. So it's worth educating people about. > I don't see how home copying can really > cost them as much as industrial piracy (unless they really expect > something like half of the purchasers to make a copy for someone who > would have otherwise bought the disk), so you gotta wonder about this > sense of priorities. Does this even need to be proven? If we hold the DVDCCA and MPAA to what they alleged in their legal briefs -- "immediate and irreparable harm", "millions of dollars" in damages, "could eliminate this business", and so forth -- maybe we don't need to speculate about what could happen 5 years down the road, we can just look at the "immediate" harm. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 18:31:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24514 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:31:51 -0500 Received: from ww156.netaddress.usa.net (ww156.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.24.56]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA24511 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:31:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 17162 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 23:32:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214233206.17161.qmail@ww156.netaddress.usa.net> Received: from 204.68.24.56 by ww156 for [208.143.43.129] via web-mailer(M3.3.1.96) on Mon Feb 14 23:32:06 GMT 2000 Date: 14 Feb 00 17:32:06 CST From: Zach Kenyon To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts] X-Mailer: USANET web-mailer (M3.3.1.96) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id SAA24512 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > I don't see how home copying can really > cost them as much as industrial piracy (unless they really expect > something like half of the purchasers to make a copy for someone who > would have otherwise bought the disk), so you gotta wonder about this > sense of priorities. The only way it makes sense to me is by invoking > ugly conspiracy theories, but it's also entirely possible that > Hollywood is just doing things that don't make much sense. FWIW, Salon ran an interview with the president of the MPAA, Jack Valenti (story here: http://www.salon.com/tech/view/2000/02/14/valenti/index.html ). I don't think conspiracy theories are needed. The problem is that the MPAA's assumptions are grounded in a completely different subset of (morals|ideologies|world views). By their logic (according to Valenti), the injunctions against DeCSS (and iCraveTV) do not prevent fair use. There's some other real gems in the interview, and it gives a bit of insight into the collective mind of the MPAA... --Jedi Hacker(apprentice) and Code Poet ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 18:41:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA29251 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:41:37 -0500 Received: from smtp3.fas.harvard.edu (root@smtp3.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.30.83]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA29248 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:41:37 -0500 Received: from is06.fas.harvard.edu (IDENT:gabriel@is06.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.30.106]) by smtp3.fas.harvard.edu with ESMTP id SAA03422; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:41:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by is06.fas.harvard.edu with ESMTP id SAA01034; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:41:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:41:53 -0500 (EST) From: Raefer Gabriel To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts] In-Reply-To: <20000214233206.17161.qmail@ww156.netaddress.usa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 14 Feb 2000, Zach Kenyon wrote: > FWIW, Salon ran an interview with the president of the MPAA, Jack Valenti > (story here: http://www.salon.com/tech/view/2000/02/14/valenti/index.html ). > I don't think conspiracy theories are needed. The problem is that the MPAA's > assumptions are grounded in a completely different subset of > (morals|ideologies|world views). By their logic (according to Valenti), the > injunctions against DeCSS (and iCraveTV) do not prevent fair use. > > There's some other real gems in the interview, and it gives a bit of insight > into the collective mind of the MPAA... I didn't really find it that insightful, personally. Basically he blows off the question of fair use by asserting that only thieves would be using DeCSS. See his analogy to sneaking into movie theaters. He *claims* people still have fair use, but doesn't explain how they do given the MPAA's legal actions. Raefer From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 18:46:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32370 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:46:32 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA32106 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:46:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 13161 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Feb 2000 23:46:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214234622.13160.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:22 PST Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:22 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] collaboration system? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- jensen morse wrote: > I just have a few questions > 1) is there anything "off the shelf" that meets most or all of our > requirements? (slashcode is good but lacking in many areas) > 2) what features etc are needed, (detailed list, not generalizations) > 3)Any other professional web developers out there willing to help > besides me? I have been discussing this same thing privately with others, including Wendy Seltzer. I think the guiding principle is to create a forum where the collective intellect of the technical community can be combined with the that of legal professionals in an open source manner. Here's several ideas / tools that would be useful: 1. CVS, so we can create legal briefs and FAQ's open source style 2. A user-friendly document creation tool that can create legal documents in something like DocBk XML (flexible CVS-able format) 3. A searchable caselaw/legislation database 4. An evidence document archive database 5. A moderated discussion board, for fine-tuning legal arguments I recommend all tools used and developed be open source, preferably GPL. By the way, the openlaw "Brainstorming" discussion forum is open now. It uses hypernews, but Wendy was considering migrating to phorum. Anyway, let's try to keep it fairly scholarly. Take a look at the other copyright case's discussion to get an idea about this to get an idea of what this should be like. I will help with the database side of things. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 19:03:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA10468 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:03:59 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA10465 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:03:58 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA09338 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:05:39 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002150005.QAA09338@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts] To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:05:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "Raefer Gabriel" at Feb 14, 2000 06:41:53 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > On 14 Feb 2000, Zach Kenyon wrote: > > > > FWIW, Salon ran an interview with the president of the MPAA, Jack Valenti > > (story here: http://www.salon.com/tech/view/2000/02/14/valenti/index.html ). > > I don't think conspiracy theories are needed. The problem is that the MPAA's > > assumptions are grounded in a completely different subset of > > (morals|ideologies|world views). By their logic (according to Valenti), the > > injunctions against DeCSS (and iCraveTV) do not prevent fair use. > > > > There's some other real gems in the interview, and it gives a bit of insight > > into the collective mind of the MPAA... > > I didn't really find it that insightful, personally. Basically he blows > off the question of fair use by asserting that only thieves would be using Class action defamation suit anyone? '-) > DeCSS. See his analogy to sneaking into movie theaters. He *claims* people > still have fair use, but doesn't explain how they do given the MPAA's > legal actions. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 19:22:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA22403 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:22:01 -0500 Received: from shadow.csufresno.edu (relay-1.csufresno.edu [129.8.57.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA22384 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:21:55 -0500 Received: from lennon.csufresno.edu (smb23@lennon.csufresno.edu [129.8.57.50]) by shadow.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02061 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:22:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (smb23@localhost) by lennon.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA18444 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:22:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:22:05 -0800 (PST) From: Steve M Bibayoff To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:21:43AM -0800, Gabe Wachob wrote: > > > Why is banning anticircumvention technology not like banning > > > lock-picking equipment? > > > > Because one picks locks to steal physical items. One decrypts > > data to read it. Encryption does not prevent copying, but it > > does prevent reading. Reading is a right, stealing is not. > > For that matter is lock-picking equipment actually banned? Wouldn't that mean > you couldn't bend paperclips a certain way? Also stealing isn't the only > motivation to pick a lock. It's quite possible that someone would want to > pick their own lock because they'd lost the key. I don't know if this applies, or matters, but lock-picking equipment is illegal to have in your possision in California unless you are a liscenced lock-smith. I don't remeber how this law was justifiable to the courts, I do know slim-jims, tubbler turners and the like have been restriceted here for at least 15 years. I'll look more into it later. Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 19:42:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA31691 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:42:27 -0500 Received: from dial217.roadrunner.com (dial217.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.217]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA31687 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:42:24 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial217.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03227 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:45:19 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:45:18 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? Message-ID: <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from David Wagner on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:04:03PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:04:03PM -0800, David Wagner wrote: > In article <20000214132147.B1701@localhost>, > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > I think from a legal stand-point we should emphasize that what the > > MPAA and associates are doing is making bit-for-bit duplication > > difficult by restricting the availability of truly blank DVDs. > > More difficult for your average Joe "I can't program my VCR" Schmoe, > yes. But not more difficult for copy pirates. [ ... deletia ... ] > In fact, I'd go much farther than you have. I'd argue that the revelation > of the CSS flaws shows that the DVD security architecture is so bad that > it cannot even be considered an "effective access control device" (emphasis > on the "effective"). And that's relevant, if you care about the DMCA. I've been thinking about posting a thread-start on the subject of "access control". Your last comment is a good place to start that thread. But first, I want to point out that we are not really saying the same thing. The most important parts of what I am saying are: (1) CSS is **not** a copy control or copy prevention measure. (2) CSS is a *reading* (as in comprehension) control and prevention measure. Full stop. As for "access control," I'd like to pose a question for everyone: Is "access control" simply a subterfuge so that the MPAA doesn't have to say what it means, namely "reading control"? My answer is "yes." I claim that copy control just doesn't exist in the sense that the MPAA wants the world to believe. Encrypted data is just as easy to copy as unencrypted data, other things being equal. Encryption is a set of techniques to reversibly obscure the meaning of data, not prevent the duplication of the encrypted data. No matter what you do, if something is offered so that people can see, read or hear it, then as a fundamental matter, it can be copied. If push comes to shove, one just points a video-cam at the end-to-end secured player-monitor. Now you've got a copy. The only way to physically prevent duplication (as opposed to legally) is to not distributed the data in the first place (in what ever format). I agree that there are a lot of other issues here like the quality of the copy, etc. but I don't think that those affect the fundamental issue here. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 19:53:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA05298 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:53:40 -0500 Received: from dial217.roadrunner.com (dial217.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.217]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA05250 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:53:37 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial217.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03245 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:56:24 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:56:23 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Message-ID: <20000214175623.B2930@localhost> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <200002142256.RAA17245@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002142256.RAA17245@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from Robert S. Thau on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:56:59PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:56:59PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > (1) One could procure truly blank DVDs, then bit-for-bit really works. > > If commercial DVD-RW drives will actually write the sectors (it's > possible the drive's firmware may refuse, even if the sectors on the > physical disk are writable), this works. But it may well be > impossible to procure "truly blank" DVD-RWs anyway; IIRC, most > consumer DVDs (the ones with encrypted data) are produced by a > physically different process than is used by the optically writable > media for DVD-RW drives. [ ... deletia ... ] > > (2)(a) Burning the key sectors of a DVD prevents reading (as in > > "comprehension") of encrypted data, not copying of the encrypted data. > > But the point of making the copy is presumably to let a non-licensee > gain access to the unencrypted version of the data --- which can't be > done with an ordinary DVD player unless the keys are in their proper Thanks for the specifics on DVD hardware. I am in agreement with many other people in this forum that demonstrations of DVD copying and play-back should feature in the defense's case. Working out the specifics of those demos is obviously very important. I would like to object to "presumably" at the end of your post on two grounds. The first is that some copying (i.e. back-up) is legal because of fair use. My second objection is that (2)(b) in my message is important: > (2)(b) One could burn the key sector(s) of a legal copy of a DVD, this > would prevent "reading" the legal copy of the copyrighted work in a > stock DVD player, but not its duplication. In addition to fair-use rights, I was trying to emphasize that the effect of key-sector burning on legal copies is the same as for illegal copies. In both cases reading is hindered, not copying per se. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 20:13:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA13196 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:13:18 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA13140 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:13:17 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112] (may be forged)) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA28173 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:13:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000214194455.00ad3e00@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:13:33 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? In-Reply-To: <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> References: <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ...then reading control is (unconstitutionally) mandated by the DMCA. At 05:45 PM 2/14/00 -0700, fenimore@roadrunner.com wrote: >I've been thinking about posting a thread-start on the subject of >"access control". Your last comment is a good place to start that >thread. But first, I want to point out that we are not really saying >the same thing. The most important parts of what I am saying are: > >(1) CSS is **not** a copy control or copy prevention measure. >(2) CSS is a *reading* (as in comprehension) control and >prevention measure. I agree. The problem is, the DMCA specifically puts the force of law behind _access_ controls. The statute takes away our freedom to read. Showing that copying is possible without DeCSS, and that DeCSS does not enable the piracy that seems to haunt the court and the MPAA are only a first step. We still have to argue against the access controls that the MPAA/DVDCCA claim are their right. I agree also with earlier posts that the law unconstitutionally breaks the balance demanded by the "progress of science and the useful arts" by enforcing "property" protections far beyond the public's ability to benefit from the creation of the "property." As Gabe wrote in a different thread: >Well, the problem is that the propety that these lawmakers are thinking of >is very different than Intellectual Property. I think it is here that the >most education and publicity needs to be focused. Why is IP different from >"physical property" that we think of and why is taking one without >explicit permission not always a bad thing while taking the other almost >always is. Why is banning anticircumvention technology not like banning >lock-picking equipment? > >The answers seem obvious to me and probably to most people on this list, >but I would suggest that due to the $$ and relative economic complexity >of the landscape surrounding IP, these answers are not obvious at all to >those decisionmakers in Washington and the state legislatures (UCITA is >very very closely related in principle). Its both an anti-lobbying and >education effort. It's worth going down the rhetorical path. The movie industry is claiming the DMCA gives it a right to put a fence around every DVD it sells, to prevent _access_ to the intellectual property the disk contains just as it would have a right to fence trespassers out of its theaters. Part of the property right they claim is the right to prevent viewing and reading, even by legitimate purchasers of the physical media. I would argue that Congress does not have the power to mandate access controls except through the copyright clause. Copyright strikes the property/progress balance with first sale -- you can resell your copy of a work or do -- and fair use exceptions -- you can give excerpts from the work to others, by quoting it, even while you keep your copy. Either we have to build similar escape hatches to those of "traditional copyright" out from the access controls of the DMCA or the entire scheme of access controls is unconstitutional. --Wendy wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 20:41:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA25018 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:41:44 -0500 Received: from dial184.roadrunner.com (dial184.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.184]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA24952 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:41:41 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial184.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA03653 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:44:41 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:44:40 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? Message-ID: <20000214184440.A3304@localhost> References: <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> <4.2.2.20000214194455.00ad3e00@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000214194455.00ad3e00@law.harvard.edu>; from Wendy Seltzer on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 08:13:33PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 08:13:33PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > ...then reading control is (unconstitutionally) mandated by the DMCA. > > At 05:45 PM 2/14/00 -0700, fenimore@roadrunner.com wrote: > >I've been thinking about posting a thread-start on the subject of > >"access control". Your last comment is a good place to start that > >thread. But first, I want to point out that we are not really saying > >the same thing. The most important parts of what I am saying are: > > > >(1) CSS is **not** a copy control or copy prevention measure. > >(2) CSS is a *reading* (as in comprehension) control and > >prevention measure. > > I agree. The problem is, the DMCA specifically puts the force of law > behind _access_ controls. The statute takes away our freedom to > read. Showing that copying is possible without DeCSS, and that DeCSS does > not enable the piracy that seems to haunt the court and the MPAA are only a > first step. We still have to argue against the access controls that the > MPAA/DVDCCA claim are their right. How about Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697; 51 S. Ct. 625; 75 L. Ed. 1357, the "Minnesota gag law"? Can one argue that "padlocking" a press is basically the same as "padlocking" the output of that press? How about prior restraint? Perhaps one can argue that state prohibitions (or state sanctioned prohibitions) on reading could be used to achieve the same results as prior restraint. Thus, reading prohibitions should be treated as prior restraint. These are a bit of a stretch, because the reading prohibition is sanctioned by the gov't, but "ordered" by a private entity. What I was trying to show in my Chinese-language-as-cypher example is that _access_ control is one and the same with _reading_ control. There is only one member to the set of objects that are "access control" and it is "reading". One can prevent _particular_ modes of copying, but once copyrighted material is distributed, there is no physical way to prevent _all_ modes of copying. If I can see something, so can a video camera or a photocopier. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 20:43:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA25884 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:43:45 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA25863 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:43:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 4667 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 01:47:09 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:47:09 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? Message-ID: <20000214204709.B4580@linuxpower.org> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000214174518.A2930@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:45:18PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:45:18PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > Is "access control" simply a subterfuge so that the MPAA doesn't have > to say what it means, namely "reading control"? > > My answer is "yes." Access control is exactly that, access control. Party A is the owner of a copyrighted work. They do not want Party B to use that work except under license conditions, so they impose a "technological measure" - encryption, a physical lock, whatever - on their work. The claim is that since non-software copyrighted media (music, film, etc.) is a performance rather than a tool, then it should be copyrighted under different rules. Their concern then becomes access rather than copying; unauthorized access in their book seems to be about the same thing as sneaking into a rock concert without paying. They're not looking at the copyrighted work as an item but as an instance of a performance. >From their perspective, "access control" and "reading control" is pretty much the same thing, I gather from what I've read. They want a DVD - or any other digital media - to be considered a performance rather than a device or item. They then can say how much you pay for the performance, where you view the performance, etc etc etc. Unless of course you suddenly have the ability to reproduce the performance perfectly on demand, without their knowledge. > I claim that copy control just doesn't exist in the sense that the > MPAA wants the world to believe. Encrypted data is just as easy to > copy as unencrypted data, other things being equal. Encryption is a > set of techniques to reversibly obscure the meaning of data, not > prevent the duplication of the encrypted data. They really don't care. They're worried that anyone can view the data at any time; so what if it's copied so long as it's still encrypted? I maintain that the *only* reason the MPAA/DVD-CCA is talking piracy in public is because it sounds better to the general public to spin it that way. If they got into "access control", they'd piss people off. Particularly the ones that really don't understand the issue. Reading the transcripts, they seem to be hitting "access control" in court, though. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org http://www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 20:48:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA27557 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:48:17 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA27552 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:48:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 4675 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 01:51:39 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:51:39 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000214205139.C4580@linuxpower.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Steve M Bibayoff on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:22:05PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:22:05PM -0800, Steve M Bibayoff wrote: > > I don't know if this applies, or matters, but lock-picking equipment is > illegal to have in your possision in California unless you are a liscenced > lock-smith. I don't remeber how this law was justifiable to the courts, I > do know slim-jims, tubbler turners and the like have been restriceted here > for at least 15 years. I'll look more into it later. I'm pretty sure these things are legal to own in Florida. Not sure about the locksmithing stuff, but last I checked you could pick up a slim-jim at any auto parts store here. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 20:58:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA30808 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:58:20 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA30805 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:58:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 10556 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 01:54:08 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 01:54:08 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12087; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:58:28 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:58:28 -0800 Message-Id: <200002150158.RAA12087@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Code-speech Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: Actually, code is a discussion through and through until compiled. Remember that is a gigantic compiler we're using. It's gigantic because even as code (C, Lisp, F77) it isn't enough for the machine to work with. The reason I believe it qualifies as a discussion is the following: 1. A mailing list conversation in complete sentences serves to focus the work but it isn't clear enough. 2. Sharing source is still a discussion beacuse it juxtaposes formal concepts with the preceding conversation. It can become a discussion not only of what features to put in the work (as in mailing list conversation), but also a discussion of what libraries are best suited. This something that you cannot do in a simple conversation. And even Asssembly qualifies because CPU designs may come into play in discussing some projects. (I'm on the F-CPU list, it comes up very often). Machine code doesn't matter because that's purely packaged to go. It's only machine code in my opinion gets sspecial treatment as nonspeech. Roland Nagtegaal wrote: >On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 12:39:56PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >computercode is much more a recipe to do or make something, >than it that is speech. >A schematic of how a lock works, of a recipe of a cake >might be (is also) a form of expression, but the functional >aspect weighs more than the free expression, I think. It's still a discussion just more formal. >Anyway, it is not important what my view is, but what would >convince this judge. >I don;t think he can be convinced that DeCSS is free speech. >He might be convinced that it is a part of a work (a free DVD >player application) that is a form of expression, i.e. a gift >to the Linux community to be able to play DVDs. >Prohibiting DeCSS would then limit this form of expression. >I think that sounds more convincing. Yes it does but we need that extra bit with the human accessible code. A lot of projects depend on that to go on. Many of the have separate conversation and implementation mailing lists the same way the Linux kernel is plit in two to allow smoother development. We don't just download and change code. That needs to be made very clear. >Roland Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 21:27:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09151 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:27:51 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA09148 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:27:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 4840 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 02:31:16 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:31:16 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Code-speech Message-ID: <20000214213116.A4829@linuxpower.org> References: <200002150158.RAA12087@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002150158.RAA12087@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:58:28PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:58:28PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Rares Marian wrote: > Actually, code is a discussion through and through until compiled. Remember that is a gigantic compiler we're using. It's gigantic because even as code (C, Lisp, F77) it isn't enough for the machine to work with. I argued this point recently, and the guy I argued it with brought up a good point. Do we make a distinction between compiled source and interpreted source? There are a number of languages that are uncompiled - Perl immediately springs to mind. So does BASIC. It could be argued that since some code presumably can be read as-is by a computer, then this argument doesn't stand. Now of course you can argue that the interpreter plays the same role as a compiler. The fact is, even binary code is only usable by assistance - the CPU. Using the same point we could argue that only the electrons themselves aren't free speech. Argh. Philosophy - Just Say No. :) > The reason I believe it qualifies as a discussion is the following: > > 1. A mailing list conversation in complete sentences serves to focus the work but it isn't clear enough. Same could be said for murder. Demonstrations are always clearer than theory. > 2. Sharing source is still a discussion beacuse it juxtaposes formal concepts with the preceding conversation. It can become a discussion not only of what features to put in the work (as in mailing list conversation), but also a discussion of what libraries are best suited. This something that you cannot do in a simple conversation. And even Asssembly qualifies because CPU designs may come into play in discussing some projects. (I'm on the F-CPU list, it comes up very often). Machine code doesn't matter because that's purely packaged to go. > Once again, same could be said for a discussion on murder. Practical application could very well help clear points in the discussion; that doesn't necessarily make murder analogous to free speech. For the record, I agree with you here. I'm just trying to point out flaws in this argument. Better us than them. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 21:42:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA16253 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:42:42 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA16250 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:42:42 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.16) with ESMTP id VAA08539 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:42:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id VAA08402; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:42:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:42:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002150242.VAA08402@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts In-Reply-To: <20000214175623.B2930@localhost> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <200002142256.RAA17245@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20000214175623.B2930@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > I would like to object to "presumably" at the end of your post on two > grounds. The first is that some copying (i.e. back-up) is legal because > of fair use. My second objection is that (2)(b) in my message is > important: > > > (2)(b) One could burn the key sector(s) of a legal copy of a DVD, this > > would prevent "reading" the legal copy of the copyrighted work in a > > stock DVD player, but not its duplication. > > In addition to fair-use rights, I was trying to emphasize that the > effect of key-sector burning on legal copies is the same as for > illegal copies. In both cases reading is hindered, not copying per se. But, I'm not sure what relevance that has to any of the cases. We could try to argue that DeCSS has, as a legitimate use, the playback of DVDs on which the key sector, but somehow none of the data sectors, have been mysteriously trashed. But that kind of damage is so unlikely that invoking it may risk playing into the plaintiffs' argument that DeCSS advocates are trying to justify the distribution of cracking tools by telling fairy tales. I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes my layman's eye as much more reasonable to stick to the argument we started with --- that people have a right to choose the manner in which they view the contents of an undamaged, original DVD (not a copy) that they plopped down money for and bought... does that really imply a constitutional challenge to the provisions of the DMCA? Sigh... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 21:47:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA18127 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:47:30 -0500 Received: from newton.pconline.com (reid@newton.pconline.com [206.145.48.1]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA18124 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:47:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (reid@localhost) by newton.pconline.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA20459 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:47:45 -0600 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:47:45 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Palmer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Code-speech In-Reply-To: <20000214213116.A4829@linuxpower.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Now of course you can argue that the interpreter plays the same role as > a compiler. The fact is, even binary code is only usable by assistance > - the CPU. Using the same point we could argue that only the electrons > themselves aren't free speech. The hinge here seems to be human-readabilty and modofiability; that is, a binary is more difficult (but not impossible) to read and modify than C source, and thus is somehow not speech--right? I don't buy that argument. The binary and the C are equivalent, mathematically. If I understand correctly--and I'm open to the possibility that I do not--a compiler is a transformational grammar. By definition, the input of a transformation is semantically equivalent to the output (else it's a function, not a transformation). The form a binary takes makes it more difficult to read and modify, but it is saying essentially the same thing as the C source. C is an interlingua for use between assembler languages. Furthermore, a binary can generate speech. To do so, it would have to contain a lexicon and a grammar (however simple). The set of `utterances' generated by such a binary would be intended by the programmer and thus constitute speech. As for interpreted vs. compiled code, the only difference is that the compilation takes place at run-time, and the transformed speech lives only in volatile memory. I have trouble seeing any code not as speech. I'm eager to have any of my misconceptions pointed out. -- Christopher Reid Palmer : www.innerfireworks.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 22:12:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA29025 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:12:33 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA29021 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:12:32 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.192.92]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000215031218.ITEO17030.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:12:18 -0500 Message-ID: <38A8C4F5.E704EF2D@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:16:05 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> <20000214204709.B4580@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:45:18PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > They're not looking at the copyrighted work as an item > but as an instance of a performance. > > >From their perspective, "access control" and "reading control" is pretty > much the same thing, I gather from what I've read. They want a DVD - or > any other digital media - to be considered a performance rather than a > device or item. They then can say how much you pay for the performance, > where you view the performance, etc etc etc. But how much you pay and where you view the performance are known to the purchaser before buying the ticket. Note that there's nothing particularly wrong with that approach even from our perspective. If a DVD is an instance of a performance, they have the right to set the conditions under which that performance is seen by the ticket buyer. The ticket buyer is made aware of those conditions at the point of sale of the ticket. I have purchased a DVD, and I expect - based on the terms presented to me at the point of sale (and those I can infer from the existing copyright regime) - that I now have the right to view that DVD. I find out after the fact that there is an extra condition that I must meet to enjoy the performance: I must be using a player licensed by the copyright owner. To apply the metaphor to the above: I have purchased a ticket to a performance. At the point of sale, it has been communicated to me that I may not take pictures, bring in a sound recorder or video camera, etc. These terms are acceptable to me. I go to the performance, only to discover that there is a requirement that I wear special electronic goggles to view the performance. These goggles are free, but these goggles are designed not to work for people who wear t-shirts bearing the logo of a competitor. (Implausible, yes I know, but...) I happened to have worn such a shirt to the performance, so I've wasted my time. The breadth and overreach of the copyright owner's protection is illustrated just as effectively within the 'performance' approach. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 22:14:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA29742 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:14:23 -0500 Received: from smtp2.fas.harvard.edu (root@smtp2.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.30.82]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA29739 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:14:22 -0500 Received: from is06.fas.harvard.edu (IDENT:gabriel@is06.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.30.106]) by smtp2.fas.harvard.edu with ESMTP id WAA27543; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by is06.fas.harvard.edu with ESMTP id WAA10393; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:14:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:14:39 -0500 (EST) From: Raefer Gabriel To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Code-speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Christopher Palmer wrote: > The hinge here seems to be human-readabilty and modofiability; that is, a > binary is more difficult (but not impossible) to read and modify than C > source, and thus is somehow not speech--right? I don't buy that argument. > > The binary and the C are equivalent, mathematically. If I understand > correctly--and I'm open to the possibility that I do not--a compiler is a > transformational grammar. By definition, the input of a transformation is > semantically equivalent to the output (else it's a function, not a > transformation). > > The form a binary takes makes it more difficult to read and modify, but it > is saying essentially the same thing as the C source. C is an interlingua > for use between assembler languages. Source and binary are equivalent in a one-way sense, i.e. that the same source code compiled by the same compiler always results in the same machine code. They are not equivalent in a one-to-one sense, though, but only in an onto sense (using functional terminology). In other words, many different source code "expressions" will compile to the same exact machine code, and the machine code cannot be disassembled to give the source code (rather a disassembler may yield some clue as to the functionality of the binary which can be pieced together by a programmer to yield meaningful source code). Thus the vague hand-waving justification for the legal fact that source code is speech and binaries aren't. This has legal precedent - see the PGP Phil Zimmerman cases. For years PGP was exported as _printed_ source code, then rescanned internationally (for some reason, source code in digital format was not considered speech by some of the relevant cases) which was the only legal way to export the PGP code from the US. Hopefully due to the efforts of thousands of people crypto law is becoming a bit more sane, but I don't know if there are any other recent developments regarding source code as protected speech in the eyes of the US government. Personally, it actually somewhat jibes with me mentally that binary executables may not constitute protected speech in a logical sense. But it does seem silly, since binary executables are then simply the product of processing, through a deterministic algorithm, something that definitely _is_ protected speech. Raefer Gabriel From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 22:22:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA02506 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:22:20 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA02502 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:22:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 5028 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 03:25:45 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:25:45 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Code-speech Message-ID: <20000214222545.A5012@linuxpower.org> References: <20000214213116.A4829@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Christopher Palmer on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 08:47:45PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 08:47:45PM -0600, Christopher Palmer wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > Now of course you can argue that the interpreter plays the same role as > > a compiler. The fact is, even binary code is only usable by assistance > > - the CPU. Using the same point we could argue that only the electrons > > themselves aren't free speech. > > The hinge here seems to be human-readabilty and modofiability; that is, a > binary is more difficult (but not impossible) to read and modify than C > source, and thus is somehow not speech--right? I don't buy that argument. Kaplan seemed to have more of an issue out of whether DeCSS was a "device" or speech. His argument was that since computer code was primarily designed to detail to a computer how to perform a task, and that the code's ability to communicate ideas was extremely limited, then DeCSS was a "device". The point that got brought up in the New York hearing was the ability to communicate ideas, not necessarily readability or modifiability (although the latter is, admittedly, an interesting point). Now even though there are a very few people out there who could read a binary dump of a compiled Win32 app and glean ideas from it, I would also argue that it is virtually impossible to "communicate" ideas through end-result compiled code. It's the source code - like mathematical formulae - that communicates ideas; that's really the whole point of source code. If compiled binary could easily communicate ideas, we wouldn't need to have source code. We'd just code in binary. > The binary and the C are equivalent, mathematically. If I understand > correctly--and I'm open to the possibility that I do not--a compiler is a > transformational grammar. By definition, the input of a transformation is > semantically equivalent to the output (else it's a function, not a > transformation). Not necessarily, though in theory it can be. In theory, a C compiler takes C and produces a mass of binary that calls assembled library functions. The end result may be a real analogy of the original code, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to be something that the CPU can understand that performs the actions described in the source. A direct transformation is more true for psuedo-compiled languages that take code and create "psuedocode", which is basically exactly the source but with the commands rendered into tokens. The interpreter then reads the tokens and saves itself the overhead of having to manually parse out the commands. Java and Perl work this way, I understand. > Furthermore, a binary can generate speech. To do so, it would have to > contain a lexicon and a grammar (however simple). The set of `utterances' > generated by such a binary would be intended by the programmer and thus > constitute speech. Yes, but does it communicate ideas? If you can't show that, then you're really stretching here. It'll be very difficult to defend this on a free speech level unless we can show that a ruling against us will prevent ideas from being communicated. That's really the hinge here. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 22:40:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA13626 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:40:49 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA13623 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:40:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 5050 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 03:44:14 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:44:14 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? Message-ID: <20000214224414.C5012@linuxpower.org> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> <20000214204709.B4580@linuxpower.org> <38A8C4F5.E704EF2D@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38A8C4F5.E704EF2D@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 10:16:05PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 10:16:05PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:45:18PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > They're not looking at the copyrighted work as an item > > but as an instance of a performance. > > > > >From their perspective, "access control" and "reading control" is pretty > > much the same thing, I gather from what I've read. They want a DVD - or > > any other digital media - to be considered a performance rather than a > > device or item. They then can say how much you pay for the performance, > > where you view the performance, etc etc etc. > > But how much you pay and where you view the performance are known to the > purchaser before buying the ticket. Note that there's nothing > particularly wrong with that approach even from our perspective. If a > DVD is an instance of a performance, they have the right to set the > conditions under which that performance is seen by the ticket buyer. > The ticket buyer is made aware of those conditions at the point of sale > of the ticket. > > I have purchased a DVD, and I expect - based on the terms presented to > me at the point of sale (and those I can infer from the existing > copyright regime) - that I now have the right to view that DVD. I find > out after the fact that there is an extra condition that I must meet to > enjoy the performance: I must be using a player licensed by the > copyright owner. I agree with your point, but for the sake of this case that's irrelevant. It would be relevant if the MPAA were suing for copyright infringement - we could then say, "hey, according to my DVD I'm only prohibited from copying it, broadcasting it and engaging in public performance; I'm allowed to do this". But, as Kaplan pointed out when the EFF tried going down this road, the MPAA isn't suing for copyright infringement. They don't have to, to sue under Chapter 12. That's what makes the DMCA - sorry, Title 17, Chapter 12 - so scary. Rather than describing one crime - copyright infringement - Title 17 now describes two completely separate crimes. You don't have to be guilty of both to still be in violation of Title 17. In the event of an MPAA win, however, this point could make the basis of one hell of a good class-action suit. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 23:09:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA23284 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:09:33 -0500 Received: from postoffice2.mail.cornell.edu (POSTOFFICE2.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.10]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA23281 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:09:32 -0500 Received: from [128.253.190.12] (R3548.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.190.12]) by postoffice2.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03481 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:09:48 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ajn23@postoffice2.mail.cornell.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000214110926.A1184@localhost> References: <20000213222213.T15762@duskglow.com>; from Russell Miller on Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:22:14PM -0800 <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> <20000213222213.T15762@duskglow.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:05:44 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Adam Naples Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:22:14PM -0800, Russell Miller wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:47:11PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: >> >> > but the issue runs deeper than this. The CSS "encryption" method is a >> > mechanism to prevent reading or viewing of copyright material. It does >> > not address the issue of copying at all. Make a bit-for-bit copy of a >> > DVD, and the copy may be played in a DVD player just as well as the >>original >> > >> In fairness, most DVD recordable disks are shipped with that space burnt >>out. >> This doesn't mean the keys can't be placed elsewhere - just that the players >> won't read the keys in other locations. IS this a form of collusion in the >> market - preventing people from creating their own DVD disks with their own >> content? >> >> The firmware is also built not to transfer those keys in most players - >>though >> it's relatively easy to get around that... just update the flash. > >Not to be pedantic, but you have mentioned two measures *other than CSS* >that might (and I stress might) hinder copying. I think my original statement >that CSS has nothing *what so ever* to do with copying it true. I think >the defense should emphasize this point. > >Your point about collusion is well taken. I'm still thinking about it. > >> > Chinese texts. Now substitute "Content Scrambling System" for "Chinese", >> > and as far as copyright is concerned, we have a perfect analogy. >> > >> Also, in fairness, Chinese does not require a special key to decode. > >Yes, Chinese is more like a substitution cypher than CSS; that is why >I added the caveat, "as far as copyright is concerned". > >The connection between unknown languages and encryption is a deep one. >One example of this connection was the use of Navajo code-talkers during >WWII by the U.S. Marines. If the defense wanted to makes use of this >connection, I think this and other examples would make it very >difficult for the court to dismiss this line or argument: decrypting >CSS is similar to learning a new language. Both allow one to read >and comprehend expressive material, neither one indicates an intent >to illegally duplicate. I dont intend to be rude, however the language analogy fails in at least 2 crucial ways: 1: CSS was developed for DVDs, if the discs were encoded using russian, the MPAA would have an fun time controlling a pre-existing language. 2: language is not a digital means of encryption anymore than math is, it is a neurological predisposition coupled with a variety of environmental factors. Just to stay with this, translate something into russian, then chinese, then perhaps a native american dialect, then back to english. You will not have the exact syntactical structures whatsoever, even if you manage to pull some measure of meaning through the process. Whereas this exact digital system developed specifically for dvds will mathematically process the data exactly the same way every time. not that I agree with the mpaa, but the elegance of the language analogy has a rather weak foundation. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 23:10:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA23519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:10:40 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA23515 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:10:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 17102 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 04:06:30 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 04:06:30 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA20950; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:10:50 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:10:50 -0800 Message-Id: <200002150410.UAA20950@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Raefer Gabriel wrote: > >I didn't really find it that insightful, personally. Basically he blows >off the question of fair use by asserting that only thieves would be using >DeCSS. See his analogy to sneaking into movie theaters. He *claims* people >still have fair use, but doesn't explain how they do given the MPAA's >legal actions. Neither did I but I have to say Salon kinda dropped the ball on this one too. I've seen too many articles already where the reporter gets close enough to look like he/she's reporting/discussing. Oh well... > >Raefer > Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 14 23:31:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA32246 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:31:20 -0500 Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA32243 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:31:19 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihiv.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.70.95]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA29127 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:31:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:25:46 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Resource In-Reply-To: <20000214175623.B2930@localhost> References: <200002142256.RAA17245@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <200002142256.RAA17245@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu We have compiled 100 Congressional documents on the DMCA and related actions on copyright leading up to the DMCA and following it. They total 9.8MB and are available Zipped: http://cryptome.org/dmca/dmca.zip (2.9MB) A complete listing of what is in the package: http://cryptome.org/dmca/dmca-index.htm (17K) Note, for now the links in the index only work in a directory containing the full package; individual files have not yet been put on our site. Here are the Contents Pre-DMCA Congressional Bills, 105th Congress (1997-1998) DMCA Congressional Bills, 105th Congress (1997-1998) Congressional Reports, 105th Congress (1997-1998) Congressional Record, Volume 144 (1998) News, Encryption Research, Other Copyright Related Legislation Subsequent to DMCA Congressional Bills, 106th Congress (1998-1999) Congressional Reports, 106th Congress (1998-1999) Congressional Record, Volume 145 (1999) Congressional Record, Volume 145 (1999) For: H.R. 1554 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 00:13:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA12085 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:13:44 -0500 Received: from smtp11.bellglobal.com (smtp11.bellglobal.com [204.101.251.53]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA12082 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:13:43 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca (ppp19627.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.236.203]) by smtp11.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA01286 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:19:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38A8E14F.4B79A8BB@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:17:03 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> <20000214204709.B4580@linuxpower.org> <38A8C4F5.E704EF2D@sympatico.ca> <20000214224414.C5012@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > I agree with your point, but for the sake of this case that's irrelevant. > It would be relevant if the MPAA were suing for copyright infringement - > we could then say, "hey, according to my DVD I'm only prohibited from > copying it, broadcasting it and engaging in public performance; I'm > allowed to do this". But, as Kaplan pointed out when the EFF tried going > down this road, the MPAA isn't suing for copyright infringement. They > don't have to, to sue under Chapter 12. Indeed, this is true. Now that you've mentioned this subject though, that moves us on to another topic. On the subject of fair use, in which the above problem emerged, Kaplan had this to say (in the transcript): Page 71: 4 We next have the argument that the defendants are 5 engaged in a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. 6 Section 107 of the Copyright Act affords a limited defense to 7 liability for copyright infringement. For the same reasons 8 that I pointed out earlier -- these defendants are not being 9 sued for copyright infringement -- the fair use defense has no 10 application in the facts of this case. Thus, no colorable 11 defense under the Copyright Act has been advanced. Some time ago, I jotted this down in response: The position that fair use does not apply because no act of copyright infringment is necessary to succeed under (a)(2) cannot stand. None of the prohibitions under 1201 ((a)(1), (a)(2) or (b)) require or contemplate actual copyright infringment by the defendant, yet ss.(c) states clearly that "nothing in this section shall affect ...defenses to copyright infringment, including fair use, under this title." If it were true that this exception is inapplicable to prohibitions where direct acts of copyright infringment are not an element of the prohibition, then ss.(c) would have no application to *any* of the subsections within 1201. Under this reading, ss.(c) has no conceivable application within s.1201, yet is contained within and purports to apply to otherwise prohibited acts defined within s.1201. It is not conceivable that Congress would include an exemption subsection that has no possible application to any prohibition in the section to which it applies. Thoughs? -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 00:16:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA12993 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:16:51 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA12990 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:16:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 20352 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 05:12:39 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 05:12:39 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA24960; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:16:59 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:16:59 -0800 Message-Id: <200002150516.VAA24960@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Adam Naples wrote: >>The connection between unknown languages and encryption is a deep one. >>One example of this connection was the use of Navajo code-talkers during >>WWII by the U.S. Marines. If the defense wanted to makes use of this >>connection, I think this and other examples would make it very >>difficult for the court to dismiss this line or argument: decrypting >>CSS is similar to learning a new language. Both allow one to read >>and comprehend expressive material, neither one indicates an intent >>to illegally duplicate. > > I dont intend to be rude, however the language analogy fails in at >least 2 crucial ways: > 1: CSS was developed for DVDs, if the discs were encoded using >russian, the MPAA would have an fun time controlling a pre-existing >language. > 2: language is not a digital means of encryption anymore than math >is, it is a neurological predisposition coupled with a variety of >environmental factors. Just to stay with this, translate something into >russian, then chinese, then perhaps a native american dialect, then back to >english. You will not have the exact syntactical structures whatsoever, >even if you manage to pull some measure of meaning through the process. >Whereas this exact digital system developed specifically for dvds will >mathematically process the data exactly the same way every time. >not that I agree with the mpaa, but the elegance of the language analogy >has a rather weak foundation. Your argument fails in one very important way: It isn't the accuracy or reliability that is relevant in the analogy. It's not a structural analogy, but a functional one. Reading and copying are fundamentally different actions. Reading involves processing of signals (DeCSS), whereas copying involves mere transfer no processing whatsoever. My way of looking at it is we are not talking about DVDs at all but a medium. The same rules apply whether the medium was paper or the palm of my hand. As a result the question to ask is do I need a German speaking photocopier to copy a letter in German? No. That applies to all media. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 00:28:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA15972 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:28:39 -0500 Received: from mailcity.com (fes-qout.whowhere.com [209.1.236.7]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA15969 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:28:38 -0500 Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by mailcity.com; Mon Feb 14 21:26:44 2000 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:26:44 -0800 From: "jensen morse" Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sent-Mail: on X-Mailer: MailCity Service Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? X-Sender-Ip: 24.14.31.125 Organization: MailCity (http://www.mailcity.lycos.com:80) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu you do make very good points except that Title 17 Section 107 (fair use) provides for the tenements of "fair use". These uses are universally recognized in several embodiments most pointedly the ability of a licensee to reproduce a work for the purposes of archiving(read:backing up). Several other embodiments exist but as this is new law I know of no available legal citings relating as such. However fair use for "new" law such as this is based legally on the following //from t17s107 USC (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. // To the extent of "fair use" has there ever been a case that could be cited as precedent in which a licensee has been denied the embodiments of fair use by a licensers copy protection measures, or is copy protection that prevents an individuals right to fair use legal? (there must be some precedent on this case, obviously not digital but probably video or at least text, may be negative precedent though) -- On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:16:05 Ian Hay wrote: >greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:45:18PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > >> They're not looking at the copyrighted work as an item >> but as an instance of a performance. >> >> >From their perspective, "access control" and "reading control" is pretty >> much the same thing, I gather from what I've read. They want a DVD - or >> any other digital media - to be considered a performance rather than a >> device or item. They then can say how much you pay for the performance, >> where you view the performance, etc etc etc. > >But how much you pay and where you view the performance are known to the >purchaser before buying the ticket. Note that there's nothing >particularly wrong with that approach even from our perspective. If a >DVD is an instance of a performance, they have the right to set the >conditions under which that performance is seen by the ticket buyer. >The ticket buyer is made aware of those conditions at the point of sale >of the ticket. > >I have purchased a DVD, and I expect - based on the terms presented to >me at the point of sale (and those I can infer from the existing >copyright regime) - that I now have the right to view that DVD. I find >out after the fact that there is an extra condition that I must meet to >enjoy the performance: I must be using a player licensed by the >copyright owner. > >To apply the metaphor to the above: I have purchased a ticket to a >performance. At the point of sale, it has been communicated to me that >I may not take pictures, bring in a sound recorder or video camera, >etc. These terms are acceptable to me. I go to the performance, only >to discover that there is a requirement that I wear special electronic >goggles to view the performance. These goggles are free, but these >goggles are designed not to work for people who wear t-shirts bearing >the logo of a competitor. (Implausible, yes I know, but...) I happened >to have worn such a shirt to the performance, so I've wasted my time. > >The breadth and overreach of the copyright owner's protection is >illustrated just as effectively within the 'performance' approach. > > >-- > ____ >| | Ian R. Hay >|____| Toronto, Canada > MailCity. Secure Email Anywhere, Anytime! http://www.mailcity.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 00:36:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA18688 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:36:54 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA18685 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:36:53 -0500 Received: (qmail 21118 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 05:32:44 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 05:32:44 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA25899; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:37:04 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:37:04 -0800 Message-Id: <200002150537.VAA25899@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've organized some of the arguments made by others into a sort of makeshift digest. What do you guys think? The Impracticality Argument The key here is that if it was impractical to copy (regardless of future technologies) this bears on intent. Why would they bother if it's impractical? Answer: To read the discs. Also bears on whether it stops home copying or pirate copying. Pirate mass copying is in fact not deterred. The Ban on paraphernalia Argument Stealing is illegal, reading is not. CSS doesn't stop copying anymore than writing in German stops a photocopier from copying. This one has been explained many times. This needs to be very clear. People have asked this question a lot. Whoever said demonstrations are needed, I say good idea. The Weakness argument Why so little effort in the actual scrambling system? The question is: Is the MPAA hoping to ride on a smoke screen all the way? My perception is that DVD is still in the hype stages. The MPAA is trying to make this sound like rocket science. We need to reduce everything to media and operations available on media in general. We need to bring home the idea that technology doesn't change the rules of the game only the capacity and performance of a particular medium. We need to make it clear that the same rules that apply to paper apply to CDs, tapes, mini discs, hard drives, DVDs, CDs, napkins, and writing on the palm of your hand. The Audit We definitely should look at their damage claims as a useful weak spot. ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 00:39:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA19438 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:39:28 -0500 Received: from mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (mailhub2.ncal.verio.com [204.247.247.54]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA19434 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:39:27 -0500 Received: from shell1.ncal.verio.com (gwachob@shell1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.248.254]) by mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA27668 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:39:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (gwachob@localhost) by shell1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA03582 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:39:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: shell1. ncal.verio.com: gwachob owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:39:41 -0800 (PST) From: Gabe Wachob To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? In-Reply-To: <38A8E14F.4B79A8BB@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You make a salient point. If the *policy* of fair use was not to be applied towards potential violations of the DMCA, then why would the fair use language be included in the statute? I think the response to this question is that the fair use language inserted in the DMCA is very poorly worded. The language should be more explicit that the same "four factors" should be applied (though, query how those factors make sense in the context of the DMCA's anti-circumvention prohibition) in considering fair use defenses to the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. In my cynical ways, I suspect that this language was made weak on purpose. Perhaps the intent was merely to not impinge on the existing body of caselaw about fair use as merely a defense to *copyright* infringement and that the language was not really intended to create a fair use exception for the DMCA. I'd be curious to see legislative history on this topic.. Indeed, the DMCA appears to be written to allow exactly the sort of plain-language interpretation that the judge is expressing. The bottom line is that the DMCA wording really is evil stuff. I think the only way the DMCA can be limited in the sense of fair use exceptions is by arguing that the DMCA is in place only as a clarification and application of general IP principles and laws mostly stated in the Copyright Act -- that the DMCA only is there to make the status quo which previously existed in copyright law more explicit in the digital era. And furthermore, that the DMCA must therefore be limited by the same Consitutional language that other IP regimes are limited by. And that the same balancing of public interest and authors' rights must be preserved even in the digital era. I think these arguments are much more persuasive than arguing over the language of the DMCA itself. I think aruging that the DMCA out of context is being interpreted incorrectly is a losing battle -- out of context, the language is pretty clear that DeCSS (outside of arguing whether DeCSS code is a "device" or protected by first amendment) is a violation of the DMCA. I think the arugment must place the DMCA in context and explain why it is against the notions of limited IP rights as enumerated by the fair use polcies, and perhaps unconstitutional (yeah, that'll fly) because it violates the "limited" wording in the Constitution.. It seems to me like the arguments against the DMCA have to be on the same policy levels as arugments against the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (aka the "infinite copyright act"). -Gabe On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ian Hay wrote: > The position that fair use does not apply because no act of copyright > infringment is necessary to succeed under (a)(2) cannot stand. None of > the prohibitions under 1201 ((a)(1), (a)(2) or (b)) require or > contemplate actual copyright infringment by the defendant, yet ss.(c) > states clearly that "nothing in this section shall affect ...defenses to > copyright infringment, including fair use, under this title." If it > were true that this exception is inapplicable to prohibitions where > direct acts of copyright infringment are not an element of the > prohibition, then ss.(c) would have no application to *any* of the > subsections within 1201. Under this reading, ss.(c) has no conceivable > application within s.1201, yet is contained within and purports to apply > to otherwise prohibited acts defined within s.1201. It is not > conceivable that Congress would include an exemption subsection that has > no possible application to any prohibition in the section to which it > applies. > > Thoughs? > > > -- > ____ > | | Ian R. Hay > |____| Toronto, Canada > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gabe Wachob - http://www.aimnet.com/~gwachob As of today, the U.S. Constitution has been in force for 77,304 days When this message was sent, 3,879,581 seconds have passed in Y2K From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 00:43:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA20995 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:43:54 -0500 Received: from mailcity.com (fes-qout.whowhere.com [209.1.236.7]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA20992 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:43:53 -0500 Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by mailcity.com; Mon Feb 14 21:41:59 2000 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:41:59 -0800 From: "jensen morse" Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sent-Mail: on X-Mailer: MailCity Service Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts X-Sender-Ip: 24.14.31.125 Organization: MailCity (http://www.mailcity.lycos.com:80) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I am not a lawyer but your point should definitely be thought about in terms of the given legal situation, is it only that which is defined in their filing that has to be refuted or is it the ideas or notion defined by their filing? What are the definitive USC portions that this filing relates to? is it an issue solely of the DMCA or does T17S107USC(fair use) work into this at all? what is the existing precedent relating to the DMCA, i haven't seen any rulings yet based on the DMCA (besides these) ? -- On 14 Feb 2000 15:16:08 -080 David Wagner wrote: >In article <200002142256.RAA17245@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>, >Robert S. Thau wrote: >> The way to eliminate this uncertainty is to get an industrial DVD >> replication setup --- these aren't cheap (the price is generally >> quoted on forums like slashdot, without attribution, as being in the >> tens of thousands), but they will allow bit-for-bit copying of >> encrypted DVDs in very large quantities, at less than a dollar per >> disk, without needing to break the encryption at all. These are, of >> course, the setups used by the large-scale industrial pirates on the >> Pacific rim and elsewhere, who are in fact costing the MPAA's members >> serious money. (Note that the blanks from these systems will *not* >> work in an ordinary home DVD-RW). > >Yes. > >And, I'm told that this is almost exactly the same setup required >for piracy of CD's. This was apparently a design consideration, so >that existing CD-pressing factories could be re-tooled to press DVD's >with minimum cost. > >But it also has implications for piracy, because there are apparently >a large number of pirates out there who already have CD-pressing >equipment. This may mean that they will find it easy to upgrade their >CD-piracy equipment to pirate DVD's. Yikes. > >> But remember, CSS is not aimed at industrial pirates. It is aimed at >> preventing *home* copying. > >Yeah, that's my interpretation, too. But remember that the DVDCCA >and MPAA don't say that in their legal briefs, and the way they allege >"immediate and irreparable harm", I could imagine that many readers >could easily overlook this distinction unless it were specifically >pointed out. So it's worth educating people about. > >> I don't see how home copying can really >> cost them as much as industrial piracy (unless they really expect >> something like half of the purchasers to make a copy for someone who >> would have otherwise bought the disk), so you gotta wonder about this >> sense of priorities. > >Does this even need to be proven? >If we hold the DVDCCA and MPAA to what they alleged in their legal >briefs -- "immediate and irreparable harm", "millions of dollars" in >damages, "could eliminate this business", and so forth -- maybe we don't >need to speculate about what could happen 5 years down the road, we can >just look at the "immediate" harm. > MailCity. Secure Email Anywhere, Anytime! http://www.mailcity.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 00:48:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA22480 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:48:24 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA22451 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:48:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 5245 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 05:51:48 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:51:48 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? Message-ID: <20000215005148.A5133@linuxpower.org> References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> <20000214204709.B4580@linuxpower.org> <38A8C4F5.E704EF2D@sympatico.ca> <20000214224414.C5012@linuxpower.org> <38A8E14F.4B79A8BB@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38A8E14F.4B79A8BB@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:17:03AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:17:03AM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > > The position that fair use does not apply because no act of copyright > infringment is necessary to succeed under (a)(2) cannot stand. None of > the prohibitions under 1201 ((a)(1), (a)(2) or (b)) require or > contemplate actual copyright infringment by the defendant, yet ss.(c) > states clearly that "nothing in this section shall affect ...defenses to > copyright infringment, including fair use, under this title." The whole passage (Title 17, Section 1201c1) reads, "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." I think it's the "rights, remedies, limitations" part that is important. "Defenses to copyright infringement" is not at issue here, since no one is defending an accusation of copyright infringement. This section of the law seems to say that nothing in Section 12 can detract from rights or defenses defined anywhere else in Title 17. If we read this letter-of-the-law, then Section 12 plain-out doesn't make sense. It defines a new crime and then turns around and says that nothing in that definition can interfere with rights already defined elsewhere in Title 17. But copyright is all about rights; to define a crime under 17 is to say that rights previously owned by one party are now owned by another. You nullify a copyright crime by saying that it doesn't affect rights transferral. Am I just tired or is this what it's saying? IANAL. Legal opinion please. > If it > were true that this exception is inapplicable to prohibitions where > direct acts of copyright infringment are not an element of the > prohibition, then ss.(c) would have no application to *any* of the > subsections within 1201. Under this reading, ss.(c) has no conceivable > application within s.1201, yet is contained within and purports to apply > to otherwise prohibited acts defined within s.1201. It is not > conceivable that Congress would include an exemption subsection that has > no possible application to any prohibition in the section to which it > applies. It's late, and I'm tired, but I don't think I'm that tired. I think you've got something here. This could be the fatal flaw of 1201; it seems to say that all this access-control circumvention stuff is illegal, except in cases where it alters the distribution of rights elsewhere in the Title. The only real question is, can we show Fair Use under the Title alone? Does court precedent count for the purposes of 1201c1? Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 01:02:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA27104 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:02:04 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA27099 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:02:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 5296 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 06:05:30 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:05:30 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Message-ID: <20000215010530.B5133@linuxpower.org> References: <200002150537.VAA25899@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002150537.VAA25899@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:37:04PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:37:04PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > I've organized some of the arguments made by others into a sort of makeshift digest. What do you guys think? > > The Impracticality Argument > > The key here is that if it was impractical to copy (regardless of future technologies) this bears on intent. Why would they bother if it's impractical? Answer: To read the discs. > Irrelevant. This has never been about copyright infringement. This is about the violation of their right to access control. What the MPAA says to the press doesn't matter except in terms of public opinion; they're talking access control in court, not copying. > The Ban on paraphernalia Argument > > Stealing is illegal, reading is not. CSS doesn't stop copying anymore than writing in German stops a photocopier from copying. > > This one has been explained many times. This needs to be very clear. People have asked this question a lot. Irrelevant. Same reasons as above. In fact, reading is currently not illegal, but it will be next year when the rest of 1201 goes into effect. Right now we're dealing with the manufacture and distribution of an access-control-circumvention technology. Next year circumvention itself becomes illegal in the U.S. We need to stop arguing this as a copy protection issue; the MPAA is only using this argument really in the press. In court, they're talking access control. The more we argue copy control, the more we play into their P.R. hands. > The Weakness argument > > Why so little effort in the actual scrambling system? > > The question is: Is the MPAA hoping to ride on a smoke screen all the way? > My perception is that DVD is still in the hype stages. The MPAA is trying to make this sound like rocket science. We need to reduce everything to media and operations available on media in general. We need to bring home the idea that technology doesn't change the rules of the game only the capacity and performance of a particular medium. We need to make it clear that the same rules that apply to paper apply to CDs, tapes, mini discs, hard drives, DVDs, CDs, napkins, and writing on the palm of your hand. > Irrelevant and wrong. The MPAA can make a strong case by arguing - as they are - that digital media and analog media are completely different worlds, with completely different problems. Currently, under 1201, it doesn't matter if the access control was weak. They knew it was going to be broken; they knew it was inevitable as early as October 1996. Those chose to deal with it by pushing for new laws. To be honest, they're not riding a smoke screen; under the law as passed, they have some valid points. We need to address those head-on instead of continuing to pretend that they don't have a case. They do. We need a better one. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 01:45:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA12249 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:45:58 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA12246 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:45:56 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id WAA27905 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:45:52 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:45:51 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Message-ID: <20000214224551.A4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from evault@mailcity.com on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:41:59PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu jensen morse writesa: > what is the existing precedent relating to the DMCA, i haven't seen any rulings yet based on the DMCA (besides these) ? According to the plaintiffs and several supporters of the defendants, this is the first-ever action based on the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions. There is no precedent anywhere on the legitimacy or interpretation of the DMCA. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 01:50:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA13893 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:50:18 -0500 Received: from dial154.roadrunner.com (dial154.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.154]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA13865 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:50:15 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial154.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA04378 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:53:19 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:53:17 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Message-ID: <20000214235317.A3834@localhost> References: <200002150537.VAA25899@ns1.filetron.com> <20000215010530.B5133@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000215010530.B5133@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:05:30AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sorry if this is a bit rough, but I'm getting tired, but this point is _really_ important in my view. So I have my say now rather than later. On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:05:30AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Irrelevant. This has never been about copyright infringement. > This is about the [ ... ] > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:37:04PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > > The Ban on paraphernalia Argument > > > > Stealing is illegal, reading is not. CSS doesn't stop copying > > anymore than writing in German stops a photocopier from copying. [ ... ] > Irrelevant. Same reasons as above. No, it is _very_ relevant. The part of the example that should be used to challenge the law is about an unknown language, _not_ the photocopying. I mentioned photocopying in the original example because I had to draw a distinction between what is all over the press (i.e. "piracy") and what the function of CSS and DeCSS are in relation to "anti-circumvention" and "trafficking in anti-circumvention" devices. You are correct that this issue as far as the law is concerned in _not_ infringement. But that is exactly what I've been saying all along, and that is exactly what the forgien language example is about! "Anticircumvention" is removal of the right to read. As far as I remember, only Amendment I and the copyright clause grant or deny any power to Congress regarding speech. "Anti- circumvention" makes it illegal to, effectively, learn or teach German/Chinese/whatever. Congress has no authority to prohibit this under the copyright clause, and hopefully we can show that it must be protected under Amend. I. This is a real issue. The right to speak is meaningless without the right of other to read. The fact that _Congress_ is passing laws that allow the regulation and prohibition of reading is potentially a very big stick to whack people with, percisely because it is not infringement, because infringing speach is not protected. However, because Congress derives authority from Amend. I and Art. II, Sect. 8, para. 8, there are constitutional issues here. This is not simply contract between two private parties. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 01:54:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA15741 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:54:50 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA15737 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:54:49 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id WAA27919 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:54:45 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:54:45 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? Message-ID: <20000214225445.B4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> <20000214132147.B1701@localhost> <88a1l3$4s4$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> <20000214204709.B4580@linuxpower.org> <38A8C4F5.E704EF2D@sympatico.ca> <20000214224414.C5012@linuxpower.org> <38A8E14F.4B79A8BB@sympatico.ca> <20000215005148.A5133@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000215005148.A5133@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:51:48AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:17:03AM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > > > > The position that fair use does not apply because no act of copyright > > infringment is necessary to succeed under (a)(2) cannot stand. None of > > the prohibitions under 1201 ((a)(1), (a)(2) or (b)) require or > > contemplate actual copyright infringment by the defendant, yet ss.(c) > > states clearly that "nothing in this section shall affect ...defenses to > > copyright infringment, including fair use, under this title." > > The whole passage (Title 17, Section 1201c1) reads, "Nothing in this > section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to > copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." > > I think it's the "rights, remedies, limitations" part that is important. > "Defenses to copyright infringement" is not at issue here, since no one > is defending an accusation of copyright infringement. This section of > the law seems to say that nothing in Section 12 can detract from rights > or defenses defined anywhere else in Title 17. I think you've provided the answer yourself: copyright infringement isn't at issue. The DMCA creates a _new_ crime of circumvention, which is orthogonal to copyright infringement. Circumvention need not imply copyright infringement (but it is still illegal). Copyright infringement need not imply circumvention. This clause is possibly just underscoring this orthogonality: the prohibition of circumvention does not expand or diminish the legal penalties for copyright infringement, or the definition of copyright infringement. So, if you practice circumvention in order to exercise a fair use right, you have broken the law (anticircumvention), but you have not infringed copyrights (fair use). If you practice circumvention in order to violate copyrights, on the other hand, you have broken the law _twice_ (anticircumvention; copyright infringement), and you can be taken to court for _both_ violations, not just one. That's how I would read that clause, anyway. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 03:34:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA07915 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:34:03 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA07911 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:34:01 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12KdR5-000Tcs-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:34:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 100 09:34:16 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> from "Paul Fenimore" at Feb 14, 0 05:45:18 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:04:03PM -0800, David Wagner wrote: > > I agree that there are a lot of other issues here like the quality of > the copy, etc. but I don't think that those affect the fundamental > issue here. One thing about the quality of copies I haven't yet seen mentioned anywhere: The MPAA and RIAA claim digital copies differ from analogue copies in that they are lossless, "the millionth copy is as perfect as the first". While this is true it also applies when the initial copy is created from an analogue medium. i.e. if you digitise the analogue video and audio outputs of a VCR and burn the data to a CDR, you then have a digital, losslessly copiable copy of the data. The same process can be applied to the outputs of a DVD player. This has been possible for years and requires no circumvention technology whatsoever. The MPAA is trying to make it appear that it's only possible to make digital copies of digital data, which is simply false. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 03:56:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA12767 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:56:01 -0500 Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA12764 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:56:00 -0500 Received: from [209.179.192.101] (pool0101.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.179.192.101]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01678 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:56:14 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:50:01 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse engineering in Sony vs. Con nectix From: Chris Tembreull To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <01C7F8610CB2D1119B1500805F9F5E8DE8A491@cantorms2.can.xerox.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu on 2/14/00 10:09 AM, Haeh, George at George.Haeh@can.xerox.com wrote: >> MPAA, >> >> Read and weep. >> >> Connectix read the Sony Playstation BIOS into their computers, >> disassembled the code, ran it with Playstation games under debuggers in a >> very thorough reverse engineering effort and produced a virtual >> playstation emulator -- totally legally. >> > As a non-lawyer I see no legal difference between reverse engineering > Playstations and DVD players. To be honest, there *is* a difference. In the case of the DVD RE (reverse engineering), the programmers had to break encryption included to protect the content. In the Playstation case, no encryption-breaking was required, since PS games aren't encrypted. However, I feel I should bring up few other points. IANAL, but here's my take on breaking encryption: - Defeating encryption is not in itself illegal; if it were, we might well be talking about defending the people who created distributed.net, instead of the DeCSS creators. - Therefore, the provisions in the DMCA against breaking encryption seem inconsistent at best. - If I recall correctly, the Xing key on one particular DVD was left out in the open for the programmers to read and use. I equate this to finding a room key in a hallway full of doors. If that key is designed to keep me out, and someone, whether erroneously or intentionally, leaves that key where I can find it in the course of normal activity (walking down the hall/reading a DVD disc), are the contents of the room that key protects still illegal to view? I know that's a strange analogy, but it's the closest I can come to making sense of this whole thing. Xing blew it, and left the key in the open. Whose fault does that make this whole affair? Remember, once made public by any means, trade secrets are no longer protected. It's arguable that the trade secret was exposed when Xing left that encryption key on the DVD. But the Playstation case (to return to my original point) *is* significant, in that reverse engineering has been identified as protected industry. Doesn't that make the law of the land inconsistent and open to challenge? -- Cheers, Chris Tembreull From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 04:04:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA14894 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:04:50 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA14891 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:04:48 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12Kdus-000AIu-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:05:06 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 100 10:05:04 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "Chris Tembreull" at Feb 15, 0 00:50:01 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > - If I recall correctly, the Xing key on one particular DVD was left out in > the open for the programmers to read and use. Not a DVD, but a software DVD player. > I equate this to finding a > room key in a hallway full of doors. If that key is designed to keep me > out, and someone, whether erroneously or intentionally, leaves that key > where I can find it in the course of normal activity (walking down the > hall/reading a DVD disc), are the contents of the room that key protects > still illegal to view? There is one crucial difference here in the case of the DVD you already had a right to view the contents *before* you found the key. What the MPAA is saying is that you have to use the prior (sanctioned by them) method of viewing rather than the key. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 04:10:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA16219 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:10:38 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA16216 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:10:34 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ke0P-0003mH-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:10:49 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:10:49 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse engineering in Sony vs. Con nectix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Chris Tembreull wrote: > To be honest, there *is* a difference. In the case of the DVD RE (reverse > engineering), the programmers had to break encryption included to protect > the content. In the Playstation case, no encryption-breaking was required, > since PS games aren't encrypted. > As a games developer, I think I should be able to correct you on a few points there. PS games have a copy protection scheme on the CDs, and a legitimate Playstation will refuse to play a game that has been copied on a CD burner. I am not sure about the Connectix emulator, but I can very well imagine that it did not check to see if the CD it played was a genuine CD (blessed by Sony I might add). If this is so ( facts needs to be checked ) it can be argued that the connectix emulater will facilitate piracy by breaking a protection scheme, thus allowing illegaly copied games to be played on a PC. frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. 9C6A46E606959C4B8C84 47B72836446BE34311EC PGPmail preferred There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 04:18:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA18925 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:18:35 -0500 Received: from stonewall.baltimore.com (mailhost.baltimore.com [195.152.140.4]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA18867 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:18:30 -0500 Message-ID: <7D696C631C6DD311829200508B2C9C691DC14C@baltimore.com> From: Alex Koumparos To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] the Internet Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:16:31 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is my first post, and I hope that I'm not saying anything that is redundant, but I think that there is an important area that has not received as much attention as it perhaps deserves. There has been a lot of discussion about the difficulties of performing a DVD-DVD copy and how that should feature in the Defence's case, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but I suspect that DVD-DVD copying may not be the greatest fear of the MPAA. In the MPAA interview it was made very clear that they particularly fear the rapid growth in hi-speed internet, and the fact that in the next couple of years it will be (possibly) easy to download a full-size movie from the 'net over broadband. AFAIK, in this context, DeCSS would be useful in providing the means to supply unencrypted video over the Internet. If this truly is a prime fear of the MPAA, a good argument will need to be presented to counter this. I am confident that showing that DeCSS does not have a meaningful role in DVD-DVD direct copying is only part of the battle; showing that this program has no meaningful role in DVD-WWW (when bandwidth/storage space allows) posting is going to be necessary as well. Regards Alex From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 04:19:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA19290 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:19:13 -0500 Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA19230 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:19:12 -0500 Received: from [209.179.192.101] (pool0101.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.179.192.101]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27791 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:19:29 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:13:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse From: Chris Tembreull To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu on 4/5/39 1:05 AM, Sham Gardner at gara0013@fh-karlsruhe.de wrote: >> - If I recall correctly, the Xing key on one particular DVD was left out in >> the open for the programmers to read and use. > > Not a DVD, but a software DVD player. I stand corrected. Thanks. >> I equate this to finding a >> room key in a hallway full of doors. If that key is designed to keep me >> out, and someone, whether erroneously or intentionally, leaves that key >> where I can find it in the course of normal activity (walking down the >> hall/reading a DVD disc), are the contents of the room that key protects >> still illegal to view? > > There is one crucial difference here in the case of the DVD you already had a > right to view the contents *before* you found the key. What the MPAA is > saying is that you have to use the prior (sanctioned by them) method of > viewing rather than the key. The odd thing is, there isn't a license agreement for a DVD disc. There's nothing that says I must play it back in a sanction fashion. There's nothing at all save the boilerplate FBI warning against illegal copying, right? Therefore, what they say/expect and what a user is enjoined to do are two entirely different things. -- Cheers, Chris Tembreull From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 04:27:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA21615 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:27:42 -0500 Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA21612 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:27:40 -0500 Received: from [209.179.192.101] (pool0101.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.179.192.101]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06636 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:27:57 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:21:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse engineering in Sony vs. Con nectix From: Chris Tembreull To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu on 2/15/00 1:10 AM, Frank Andrew Stevenson at frank@funcom.com wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Chris Tembreull wrote: >> To be honest, there *is* a difference. In the case of the DVD RE (reverse >> engineering), the programmers had to break encryption included to protect >> the content. In the Playstation case, no encryption-breaking was required, >> since PS games aren't encrypted. >> > > As a games developer, I think I should be able to correct you on a few > points there. PS games have a copy protection scheme on the CDs, and a > legitimate Playstation will refuse to play a game that has been copied > on a CD burner. There's a copy-protection scheme, and then there's encryption. The DMCA specifically targets the latter. Can you tell me what form the copy-protection scheme of a PS disc takes? If it's encryption, then the Connectix case may very well indeed set a precedent for this case. But I don't think (uninformed guess) that it is - I can pop a PS disc into my computer and use various other utilities to fetch video (FMV) clips from that disc. This seems to say to me that encryption isn't used. That really gets down to the point, doesn't it? Government policy on encryption and the export of same is pretty much at the heart of this case. -- Cheers, Chris Tembreull From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 04:47:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA26118 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:47:09 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA26115 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:47:08 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12KeZo-0004jr-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:47:24 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:47:24 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse engineering in Sony vs. Con nectix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Chris Tembreull wrote: > on 2/15/00 1:10 AM, Frank Andrew Stevenson at frank@funcom.com wrote: > > There's a copy-protection scheme, and then there's encryption. The > DMCA specifically targets the latter. Can you tell me what form > the copy-protection scheme of a PS disc takes? PS discs contains special tracks, that can't easily be burnde by standard means. i.e. no encryption. > If it's encryption, then the Connectix case may very well indeed set > a precedent for this case. But I don't think (uninformed guess) > that it is - I can pop a PS disc into my computer and use various > other utilities to fetch video (FMV) clips from that disc. This > seems to say to me that encryption isn't used. DMCA is not about encryption, it is about technology. In order to access the copyrighted works ( a playstaion game ) you need a player sanctioned by SONY. By controlling the players, Sony has gained control on the manufacturing process. No Playstation game can be published without Sonys approval. ( And until recently also the players ) Similarly by controlling the manufacturing process, the DVD-CCA has gained control of the player market, and probably also gets is share from the manufacturing process. frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. 9C6A46E606959C4B8C84 47B72836446BE34311EC PGPmail preferred There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 08:59:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA07182 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:59:51 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA07179 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:59:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 6000 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 14:03:14 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:03:14 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Message-ID: <20000215090314.D5133@linuxpower.org> References: <200002150537.VAA25899@ns1.filetron.com> <20000215010530.B5133@linuxpower.org> <20000214235317.A3834@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000214235317.A3834@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:53:17PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:53:17PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > Sorry if this is a bit rough, but I'm getting tired, but this point > is _really_ important in my view. So I have my say now rather than later. > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:05:30AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Irrelevant. This has never been about copyright infringement. > > This is about the > [ ... ] > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:37:04PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > > > The Ban on paraphernalia Argument > > > > > > Stealing is illegal, reading is not. CSS doesn't stop copying > > > anymore than writing in German stops a photocopier from copying. > [ ... ] > > Irrelevant. Same reasons as above. > > No, it is _very_ relevant. The part of the example that should be used to > challenge the law is about an unknown language, _not_ the photocopying. I > mentioned photocopying in the original example because I had to draw > a distinction between what is all over the press (i.e. "piracy") > and what the function of CSS and DeCSS are in relation to > "anti-circumvention" and "trafficking in anti-circumvention" > devices. You are correct that this issue as far as the law is > concerned in _not_ infringement. But that is exactly what I've been > saying all along, and that is exactly what the forgien language > example is about! "Anticircumvention" is removal of the right to read. > As far as I remember, only Amendment I and the copyright clause > grant or deny any power to Congress regarding speech. "Anti- > circumvention" makes it illegal to, effectively, learn or teach > German/Chinese/whatever. Congress has no authority to prohibit > this under the copyright clause, and hopefully we can show that it > must be protected under Amend. I. If we try, we will lose. Why? Because data encryption is not equivalent to a foreign language. Why? Because the entire purpose of data encryption is to prevent the usage of that data in any way before first unmangling it. Data encryption is a security measure. Foreign languages are not, except to amazingly stupid. What Section 12 says - and what Kaplan has been stating in court - is that a copyright owner has the right to this security measure in order to protect their rights. No different from a federal law defining criminal penalties for unauthorized computer intrusion. Personally, I think Section 12 have some very serious constitutional issues. But I'm not convinced that we can win a constitutional challenge on the First. I think the legal target should probably be fair use (defined in Title 17 and court precedent, not the Constitution), and whether or not a copyright owner has the right to totally eliminate it for security reasons. We could probably win this without leaving Title 17. > This is a real issue. The right to speak is meaningless without the > right of other to read. The fact that _Congress_ is passing laws that > allow the regulation and prohibition of reading is potentially a very > big stick to whack people with, percisely because it is not infringement, > because infringing speach is not protected. However, because > Congress derives authority from Amend. I and Art. II, Sect. 8, para. 8, > there are constitutional issues here. This is not simply contract > between two private parties. True. But it's not likely to produce a win for our side. A Title 17 challenge is one thing; a constitutional challenge is something completely different. Going in front of a judge and arguing the legal right to read secured data is as likely of succeeding as ranting, "Information want to be free!!" in the courtroom. This isn't just about whether rights are being infringed on. It's also about what we can present in court and fight on a legal level. We have to think of the politics of it. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 09:08:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA09538 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:08:39 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA09534 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:08:38 -0500 Received: (qmail 6010 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 14:12:08 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:12:08 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is "access control" really "reading control"? Message-ID: <20000215091208.E5133@linuxpower.org> References: <20000214174518.A2930@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Sham Gardner on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:34:16AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:34:16AM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:04:03PM -0800, David Wagner wrote: > > > > I agree that there are a lot of other issues here like the quality of > > the copy, etc. but I don't think that those affect the fundamental > > issue here. > > One thing about the quality of copies I haven't yet seen mentioned anywhere: > > The MPAA and RIAA claim digital copies differ from analogue copies in that > they are lossless, "the millionth copy is as perfect as the first". While > this is true it also applies when the initial copy is created from an analogue > medium. i.e. if you digitise the analogue video and audio outputs of a VCR > and burn the data to a CDR, you then have a digital, losslessly copiable > copy of the data. The same process can be applied to the outputs of a DVD > player. This has been possible for years and requires no circumvention > technology whatsoever. But the copy will inherently be of lesser quality than a digital-to-digital copy. And you have to break Macrovision in order to do it, in the case of DVD technology. Once you have a crappy digital copy, then yes, you can make new crappy digital copies ad infinitum. > > The MPAA is trying to make it appear that it's only possible to make digital > copies of digital data, which is simply false. Jesus. How much longer before people start realizing that the MPAA is not arguing in court about piracy, but access control? The MPAA is saying one thing in the press - "they're pirates; they want to copy DVD's" - and another thing in court - "they want to destroy our ability to control the use of our product". Those are completely different issues. My guess is that they're throwing out this "piracy" angle to do two things. One, they want to get the public on their side and it sounds better to say "we're protecting our products from piracy" than "we want to control how you watch these things". Two, they want us to build a legal case about copy protection when they're not claiming copyright infringement in court. The EFF walked right into that gambit in the New York hearing. While I'm on this topic, if any EFF lawyers are reading this, will you *please* next time show up with a copy of Title 17 (standing law) rather than all different copies of the DMCA (the pre-enacted bill as handed to Clinton)? Rant off. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 09:16:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA11357 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:16:41 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA11353 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:16:39 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12Kimg-000HL2-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:16:58 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 100 15:16:57 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20000215090314.D5133@linuxpower.org> from "greslin@linuxpower.org" at Feb 15, 0 09:03:14 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > If we try, we will lose. Why? Because data encryption is not equivalent to > a foreign language. Why? Because the entire purpose of data encryption is > to prevent the usage of that data in any way before first unmangling it. > Data encryption is a security measure. Foreign languages are not, except to > amazingly stupid. One gripe with this: The US military used this "amazingly stupid" security measure to great effect in World War II when they used the Navajo Indians' unwritten language as a form of "encryption". Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 09:30:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA22366 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:30:32 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA22363 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:30:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 6066 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 14:34:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:34:01 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Message-ID: <20000215093401.G5133@linuxpower.org> References: <20000215090314.D5133@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Sham Gardner on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:16:57PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:16:57PM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > If we try, we will lose. Why? Because data encryption is not equivalent to > > a foreign language. Why? Because the entire purpose of data encryption is > > to prevent the usage of that data in any way before first unmangling it. > > Data encryption is a security measure. Foreign languages are not, except to > > amazingly stupid. > > One gripe with this: The US military used this "amazingly stupid" security > measure to great effect in World War II when they used the Navajo Indians' > unwritten language as a form of "encryption". In 1940, it wasn't amazingly stupid. Today it would be; access to information is far greater today than it was then. Amazing the difference sixty years makes. At any rate, it still doesn't detract from the basic point, that the argument that encryption is just another language doesn't hold water. Language naturally serves to facilitate communication and to communicate ideas. Encryption is a security measure that aims at exactly the opposite goal. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 10:11:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA32747 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:11:16 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA32744 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:11:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 13379 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 15:07:08 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 15:07:08 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA08729; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:11:27 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:11:27 -0800 Message-Id: <200002151511.HAA08729@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Tell the media what MPAA is really fighting for Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:37:04PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >Irrelevant. This has never been about copyright infringement. This is about the >violation of their right to access control. What the MPAA says to the press doesn't >matter except in terms of public opinion; they're talking access control in court, >not copying. Okay, the fact this isn't about copyright infingement needs to be made clear. >In fact, reading is currently not illegal, but it will be next year when the rest of 1201 >goes into effect. Right now we're dealing with the manufacture and distribution of an >access-control-circumvention technology. Next year circumvention itself becomes illegal >in the U.S. > >We need to stop arguing this as a copy protection issue; the MPAA is only using this >argument really in the press. In court, they're talking access control. The more we >argue copy control, the more we play into their P.R. hands. >> The Weakness argument >> >> Why so little effort in the actual scrambling system? >> >> The question is: Is the MPAA hoping to ride on a smoke screen all the way? >> My perception is that DVD is still in the hype stages. The MPAA is trying to make this sound like rocket science. We need to reduce everything to media and operations available on media in general. We need to bring home the idea that technology doesn't change the rules of the game only the capacity and performance of a particular medium. We need to make it clear that the same rules that apply to paper apply to CDs, tapes, mini discs, hard drives, DVDs, CDs, napkins, and writing on the palm of your hand. >> > >Irrelevant and wrong. The MPAA can make a strong case by arguing - as they are - >that digital media and analog media are completely different worlds, with completely >different problems. That's just it. It would a very strong false case. The machinery inside a medium is irrelevant. What matters in the real world (if you believe in some natural laws) is how it's used. But then again they are arguing about different media. Because they're counting on the DMCA not the Constitution to save them. I think I get it. WOW. This is fscked. >Currently, under 1201, it doesn't matter if the access control >was weak. They knew it was going to be broken; they knew it was inevitable as early >as October 1996. Those chose to deal with it by pushing for new laws. > >To be honest, they're not riding a smoke screen; under the law as passed, they have some >valid points. We need to address those head-on instead of continuing to pretend that >they don't have a case. They do. We need a better one. > We need a different approach then. I'll see what I can come up with. The first thing to do is to cut through their disinfo about the case. Whenever a site talks about coypright infringement we let them know they're wrong. Just don't flame them... >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 10:43:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13969 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:43:56 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA13951 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:43:45 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02785 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:43:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:43:51 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse Message-ID: <20000215104351.G1781@nacs.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu First, someone on this list used IANAL to (presumably) mean I Am Not A Lawyer. Let me continue that little tradition: IANAL. (It this matter it's probably best to announce this ;) I just have a few questions to throw out regarding the DVD license and the pertinence of other things that I've heard relating to this. The answers to some of these questions may be obvious to lawyers and similar, but they aren't to me. First, what exactly are the terms of the license which a consumer implicitly enters into by purchasing a DVD? Where are these consumer rights defined? By copyright law? If that's the case, isn't the only plausible argument that the DVD-CA is overstepping the protections afforded to it by copyright law/DMCA, with an attempt to sidestep the courts to a small degree by using technological means to enforce such overstepping, irregardless of whether the DVD-CA is making an access-control and not a copy-protection argument? And the point that the circumvention of the encryption was merely to perform operations which would otherwise be considered fair use? Making such an argument would require the argument that certain consumer rights were treaded upon, such as the right to play DVDs on your choice of platform or the right to copy for backup purposes (like I copy my own CDs at home), or even the right to competitive products regarding the DVD-CA monopoly issue. I realize that the DMCA prevents circumvention of technological means irregardless of what might be considered fair use (or so it seems from the excerpts that I've seen and the comments which I've read), but that is certainly flawed, as it gives software authors the ability to arbitrarily determine fair use, effectively circumventing consumer protection laws and affording those software authors the power to effectively write their own laws. Practicality (including the practicality of confronting this in the current case) aside, I think that needs to be shot down; while I have no problem with copy-protection schemes on software or other media, I'd like to have either the right to reverse-engineer and circumvent those methods when they impede on my rights *OR* I'd like courts to have the ability to keep up with technological advances well enough that I would have some avenue to defend my rights as a consumer. (I am a software author, did I mention?) Just how would you determine what your rights as a DVD consumer are? By analizing the intent of the technological methods which protect it? -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice (jasonf@nacs.net) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 10:48:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA15916 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:48:43 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA15850 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:48:42 -0500 Received: (qmail 6251 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 15:52:12 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:52:12 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Tell the media what MPAA is really fighting for Message-ID: <20000215105212.J5133@linuxpower.org> References: <200002151511.HAA08729@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002151511.HAA08729@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:11:27AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:11:27AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:37:04PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > >Irrelevant. This has never been about copyright infringement. This is about the > >violation of their right to access control. What the MPAA says to the press doesn't > >matter except in terms of public opinion; they're talking access control in court, > >not copying. > > Okay, the fact this isn't about copyright infingement needs to be made clear. Exactly. We need to fight this as the two-front war it is, trying to bring it down to a single front. We're so busy fighting the "copy protection" battle that we're being flanked by the "access control" thrust. It's the "access control" thrust that matters. Our first concern should be to counter every single press release the MPAA puts out, and get the word out to the general media that this issue has nothing to do with copy protection, but access control. This was the big mistake the EFF lawyers made in New York, aside from showing up with copies of the DMCA rather than Title 17. They came in fighting a copyright infringement case, because that was the common perception of the issue. The MPAA lawyers outflanked them with the "access control" issue and beat them to death with it. > >> My perception is that DVD is still in the hype stages. The MPAA is trying to make this sound like rocket science. We need to reduce everything to media and operations available on media in general. We need to bring home the idea that technology doesn't change the rules of the game only the capacity and performance of a particular medium. We need to make it clear that the same rules that apply to paper apply to CDs, tapes, mini discs, hard drives, DVDs, CDs, napkins, and writing on the palm of your hand. > >> > > > >Irrelevant and wrong. The MPAA can make a strong case by arguing - as they are - > >that digital media and analog media are completely different worlds, with completely > >different problems. > > That's just it. It would a very strong false case. The machinery inside a medium is irrelevant. What matters in the real world (if you believe in some natural laws) is how it's used. But then again they are arguing about different media. Because they're counting on the DMCA not the Constitution to save them. > This is another issue that we need to deal with in the press. It'll be much easier to pass the "it's digital! we need new laws!" argument in the press than in court. Remember, Congress ALREADY BOUGHT IT. They already passed the law. We're not trying to sway public opinion in order to get Congress to not pass a law. We're trying to sway public opinion so that, should the MPAA win this, it will be a P.R. nightmare; this will hopefully add extra incentive for a peaceful resolution to all this. What we want to do is demonize the MPAA to the point that they look like vicious ogres, wanting nothing less than dictatorial powers over digital media. God, I can't believe I just wrote that. It's true, but I still can't believe it. By the way - remember that Kaplan pointed out in his official explanatory notes that copyright law has to be flexible and adapt to new technologies. In his view, the copyright problems presented by digital media is very relevant. I don't think that arguing the irrelevance of digital vs. analog is necessarily smart. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 11:03:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA22304 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:03:52 -0500 Received: from dial94.roadrunner.com (dial94.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.94]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA22301 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:03:49 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial94.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA00873 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:06:43 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:06:42 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts: Language Message-ID: <20000215090642.A777@localhost> References: <20000215090314.D5133@linuxpower.org> <20000215093401.G5133@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000215093401.G5133@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:34:01AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:34:01AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > At any rate, it still doesn't detract from the basic point, that the argument > that encryption is just another language doesn't hold water. Thank you for your comments, they help clarify the issue of cypher strength. I've included the headers from my original post to facilitate finding it: Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:47:11 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Message-ID: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> The problem with your basic point is that you are saying B iff A, when the argument only needs A -> B. The _part_ of the argument in that post that makes reference to _unknown_ languages relies on the fact that language can be used for data privacy. It is not necessary for an encryption system to provide all the features of language. It is only necessary for the language to provide a modicum of privacy. The example does not require if-and-only-if. >From your ealier post: On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:03:14AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > If we try, we will lose. Why? Perhaps. This is your opinion, nothing more. > Because data encryption is not equivalent to > a foreign language. Why? Because the entire purpose of data encryption is > to prevent the usage of that data in any way before first unmangling it. The fact that languages have other uses in no way detracts from the point that they can also provide a measure of privacy. IFF is not a requirement of the argument about the right to read. The anti-circumvention provisions could just as well apply to a new, invented "natural" language (in the same vein as Esperanto) as it does to the CSS. Under the "anti-circumvention" provisions, it will be illegal to learn and is _now_ illegal to teach (traffic in) "Esperanto". > Data encryption is a security measure. I think it is important to maintain a distinction between _privacy_ and _security_, because they are not the same thing. Data encryption is a privacy measure. You can steal encrypted data (no security guarantee), but if the encryption is "strong", you need the keys to _read_ it (as long as you control the keys and the cryptosystem is strong, you have privacy). > Foreign languages are not, except to amazingly stupid. I didn't say it was strong in the same way that Blowfish is. The DMCA only requires "effective" "access" control, not "strong" access control. If it did require strong access control, this forum would not exist because CSS is brain-dead stupid. We should apply the same test of "effective" to CSS and an unknown language. Access control anyone? Wants pawn term dare worsted ladle gull hoe lift wetter murder, inner ladle cordage, itch offer lodge dock florist. Disk ladle gull orphan worry putty ladle rat hut wetter ladle rat cluck and fur disk raisin, pimple colder ladle rat rotten hut. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 11:05:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA22819 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:05:06 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA22816 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:05:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 16851 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 16:00:58 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 16:00:58 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA14646; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:05:17 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:05:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200002151605.IAA14646@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: >> If we try, we will lose. Why? Because data encryption is not equivalent to >> a foreign language. Why? Because the entire purpose of data encryption is >> to prevent the usage of that data in any way before first unmangling it. >> Data encryption is a security measure. Foreign languages are not, except to >> amazingly stupid. > >One gripe with this: The US military used this "amazingly stupid" security >measure to great effect in World War II when they used the Navajo Indians' >unwritten language as a form of "encryption". The point of encryption is to make data unusable except to an informed party. The unmangling argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether I ROT13, PGP, Quantum Encrypt, or just take out all the vowels. The MPAA did not invent encryption. As far as I know, ole Julius did. And it wasn't a very difficult one either. Simply put encryption is not the encoding of a letter or object. We call that translation whether it be complex or not. It is the intent to hide. That is what encryption is. The same way unscrewing a screw is not the turning of a screwdriver it is the removal of the screw. I could use a kitchen knife, a pair of tweezers, or someone's overly long fingernail to Unscrew a screw. We have to realize two things. Details about how an act is accomplished are irrelevant. It is the act itself that counts. However, while we must maintain that point, the MPAA is going to try to corner us with details. And I'm not sure we can fight simply with details. I think we should attack their case from all sides in a consistent(pray!!) manner. We need to argue different aspects. Sure fight them in the context of breaking code. But don't stop searching for ways to open up the ball game. It's one thing to say DeCSS does x,y,and z. What's very important is that this ruling has implicatiuons way beyond DeCSS. >Sham Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 11:07:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA24301 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:07:45 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24279 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:07:44 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.236.83]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000215160643.LVUE17030.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:06:43 -0500 Message-ID: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:10:34 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Bit-for-bit copying Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu As a technical issue, quite apart from its relevance to any legal arguments that may incorporate such issues, I want to settle something. A -lot- of people, in various discussion forums but more importantly to the press, have parrotted the "you can to a bit-for-bit copy" argument, typically in support of the idea that CSS is "not about copying, but about playback". This has been repeated in this mailing list a few times in the past 24-hours. There appear to be two positions frequently stated in our discussions (both here and in Slashdot): (1) that bit-for-bit copying is possible and a DVD player cannot tell the difference between a real and copied DVD, and (2) that bit-for-bit copying is possible, and on the copied version, it is not the copying that has been prevented, it is only the playback that is prevented. (These are incompatible positions.) To put it bluntly, the first position - in my reading of the technical descriptions of CSS - is patently false; the second position is pure sophistry. Copying *of a playable DVD* HAS been prevented by CSS (in the absence of DeCSS). We are not helping ourselves by parroting arguments that can easily be exposed as false by the MPAA. Unfortunately, the first position is widely believed, largely due to the stature and prominence of those who have stated it. From ESR's widely-read letter on the subject: > The real story here, though, is that the DVDCA's central complaint is > fraudulent. DVD encryption does nothing to prevent content piracy. A > pirate doesn't have to know how to decode DVDs to make bit-for-bit > copies of them by the thousands. And no DVD player can distinguish > between a legally distributed original and a pirated bit-for-bit copy. > The amount of protection content producers get from DVD is exactly > zero. >From opendvd.org's press statement: "6. However, as this letter clearly shows, the encryption only hinders playback. It is possible to (illegally) copy a DVD disk without decrypting anything! You can do this because the decryption is done at play time and doesn't have anything to do with copying." Again - ESR's statement is false[***] , and opendvd.org's statement is confusing at best, misleading at worst. True, it is consistent with the facts, but the whole point of the MPAA's argument is that DeCSS allows one to do something that cannot be done without it. Why are people insisting that there is some functional, theoretical or legal difference between a scheme that prevents copying in the first place, and one that prevents successful use of an unauthorized copy? Both achieve the intended result: by arguing otherwise, you are misleading your audience into believing that CSS did -not- achieve its intended result, which can be easily demonstrated to be false. (Or, at least, that while there may be facts that show that CSS did not achieve its intended result, but this is NOT one of them.) The above has been blunt, yes; but I actually believe we have a justifiable and arguable legal position, and I don't want to see it polluted by weak and fragile arguments. Comments? [***] From the October 1999 IEEE paper on CSS : "In operation, the content-scrambling system for DVD-Video discs starts at the movie studio. The studio first transfers the motion picture into the digital domain, applies MPEG2 compression, and assembles the work's components (such as soundtracks, menus, subtitles, and special features) in accordance with the DVD-Video specification. This content is selectively scrambled in line with the rules of the CSS, either at the studio or at the disc production plant, and then transferred to the DVD master recording. The content encryption key is protected by another layer of encryption and placed in the lead-in area of the master recording. ... Preventing copy-protected DVD-Video discs from being played back on noncompliant systems is only one problem. The copy protection system for DVD-Video (and DVD-Audio) must also prevent compliant playback systems from reading unauthorized bit-by-bit copies made to recordable DVD media. (In bit-by-bit copies, every piece of data on the disc is copied in sequence regardless of its content.) This is done by pre-embossing (or in the case of write-once DVD-R media, factory pre-recording) the sector reserved for the DVD-Video or DVD-Audio disc decryption keys. As a result, the recordable blank cannot record a copy of the disc decryption key associated with a bit-by-bit copy's transfer of content, and while the copy itself is not prevented, it is impossible to play back." -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 11:17:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29217 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:17:51 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA29214 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:17:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 6316 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 16:21:21 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:21:21 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse Message-ID: <20000215112121.K5133@linuxpower.org> References: <20000215104351.G1781@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000215104351.G1781@nacs.net>; from Jason M. Felice on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:43:51AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:43:51AM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > First, someone on this list used IANAL to (presumably) mean I Am Not A Lawyer. > Let me continue that little tradition: IANAL. (It this matter it's probably > best to announce this ;) It's probably also best to assume it. :) > First, what exactly are the terms of the license which a consumer implicitly > enters into by purchasing a DVD? Where are these consumer rights defined? > By copyright law? I've got a copy of the movie "Brazil" in front of me, distributed on DVD by Universal Home Video and copyrighted to Embassy International Pictures. The outside of the case, on the back towards the bottom, says: "(c) 1998 Universal Home Video, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Printed in USA. WARNING: For private home use only. Unauthorized public performance, broadcasting or copying is a violation of applicable laws. Dolby and the Dolby-D symbol are trademarks of Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation." The interesting part is that only on the inside of the case, in the little paper flyer they include with DVD's, does it point out that this disc can only be played on a Region 1 player. I've also checked fifteen other DVD's put out by various distributors; most of them don't even go that far on the outside of the case. You have to buy it, open it, and then you get to know your license rights. There isn't even the above warning on the outer jacket. No wonder some countries have declared region codes illegal. > If that's the case, isn't the only plausible argument that the DVD-CA is > overstepping the protections afforded to it by copyright law/DMCA, with an > attempt to sidestep the courts to a small degree by using technological > means to enforce such overstepping, irregardless of whether the DVD-CA is > making an access-control and not a copy-protection argument? And the point > that the circumvention of the encryption was merely to perform operations > which would otherwise be considered fair use? It would, except for the fact that the DMCA (Section 12, now.) dismantles fair use rights. Truth is, this law was passed for only one reason - to protect against a CSS break. The DVD industry knew as early as October 1996 that CSS was ridiculously weak and would be broken. They chose to lobby for anti-circumvention laws to give them a legal weapon with this happened. ( Tape/Disc Business Magazine, October 1996. "DVD Copy Protection: An Agreement At Last?" by Dana Parker. http://www.kipinet.com/tdb/tdb_oct96/feat_protection.html ) Now guess what happened three years later. The hinge on 12, though, is 1201c1, which basically says that nothing in Section 12 will interfere with any rights or defenses defined elsewhere in Title 17, including fair use. Since Section 12, used the way the MPAA is using it here, shuts down fair use, then yeah, I'd say this clause applies. > I realize that the DMCA prevents circumvention of technological means > irregardless of what might be considered fair use (or so it seems from the > excerpts that I've seen and the comments which I've read), but that is > certainly flawed, as it gives software authors the ability to arbitrarily > determine fair use, effectively circumventing consumer protection laws and > affording those software authors the power to effectively write their own > laws. Not software authors. There are exemptions for computer software. But anyone else cranking out copyrighted material can write their own IP laws, true. Fair use stops being fair use when it's not a protected right. Under 17.12, fair use applies only so long as a copyright owner doesn't take steps to prevent it. It effectively makes fair use a gift rather than a right, which isn't fair use at all. Fair use is about what would normally be considered copyright infringement, but isn't for specific reasons. > Just how would you determine what your rights as a DVD consumer are? By > analizing the intent of the technological methods which protect it? I'd say by being presented with a license agreement. If the MPAA wants to play by software rules (i.e., protected access), then they should have to play by all of them, starting with purchase-point licenses. There should be a notice on every DVD case produced detailing exactly what license rights you're purchasing. They don't do that right now. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 11:26:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA32193 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:26:19 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA32190 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:26:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 18209 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 16:22:12 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 16:22:12 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA16131; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:26:30 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:26:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200002151626.IAA16131@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:16:57PM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: >> > If we try, we will lose. Why? Because data encryption is not equivalent to >> > a foreign language. Why? Because the entire purpose of data encryption is >> > to prevent the usage of that data in any way before first unmangling it. >> > Data encryption is a security measure. Foreign languages are not, except to >> > amazingly stupid. >> >> One gripe with this: The US military used this "amazingly stupid" security >> measure to great effect in World War II when they used the Navajo Indians' >> unwritten language as a form of "encryption". >> >In 1940, it wasn't amazingly stupid. Today it would be; access to information >is far greater today than it was then. Amazing the difference sixty years >>makes. > >At any rate, it still doesn't detract from the basic point, that the argument >that encryption is just another language doesn't hold water. Language >naturally serves to facilitate communication and to communicate ideas. >Encryption is a security measure that aims at exactly the opposite goal. Encryption is the intent to hide. Encryption is an act. A language in and of itself is a bunch of symbols. A language is an object. Translating purely from one language to another is just that the act of translation. Translation with intent to hide IS encryption. In fact, the wide access to information would make "encryption stupid" :) Don't get caught up in details. On the one hand ignoring details gets us fighting on the in the wrong case. On the other hand only counting on details gets us fighting in their court. That's backwards. It's their responsibility to prove guilt. We just need to knock every argument down. But we need to be driven forward by the larger picture this case represents. The freedom to compete. The DMCA hurts competition badly, forget the copyright infringement, or the bypassing of security measures. > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 11:33:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03675 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:33:52 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03671 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:33:51 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12KkvQ-0005zd-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:34:08 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:34:08 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bit-for-bit copying In-Reply-To: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ian Hay wrote: > To put it bluntly, the first position - in my reading of the technical > descriptions of CSS - is patently false; the second position is pure > sophistry. Copying *of a playable DVD* HAS been prevented by CSS (in > the absence of DeCSS). We are not helping ourselves by parroting > arguments that can easily be exposed as false by the MPAA. If by bit-for-bit copying you mean cloning the data as you can read it from the PC, then there are a number of difficulties in doing that. But I believe the bit-for-bit copying that has been proposed is at the _physical_ level, i.e. how the individual bits are encoded onto the disk. This is openly described in the DVD technical documents, but is obviously beyond what an ordinary consumer can do. The assumption is that large scale pirates, such as those based in Hong Kong posess equipment that allows them remaster DVDs, and print them with only slightly modified CD presses. The copyright holders admit in their own statistics that DVD piracy has existed for years in Hong Kong, and on another mailing list we had a protracted argument on the wisdom of trying to obtain such a DVD and submit it to the court. This seems to be the only way to establish wether a physical layer bit-for-bit copy will produce a playable DVD, the assumption was that the HK pirated DVDs, would have the CSS encryption intact. frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. 9C6A46E606959C4B8C84 47B72836446BE34311EC PGPmail preferred There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 11:33:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03669 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:33:50 -0500 Received: from pluto.mis.amat.com (pluto.mis.amat.com [207.82.111.154]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03665 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:33:48 -0500 Received: from jump.net (ESANDEEN5.mis.amat.com [172.24.41.159]) by pluto.mis.amat.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA15109 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:25:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38A97FDC.B0796762@jump.net> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:33:32 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bit-for-bit copying References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ian Hay wrote: > > As a technical issue, quite apart from its relevance to any legal > arguments that may incorporate such issues, I want to settle something. > > A -lot- of people, in various discussion forums but more importantly to > the press, have parrotted the "you can to a bit-for-bit copy" argument, > typically in support of the idea that CSS is "not about copying, but > about playback". This has been repeated in this mailing list a few > times in the past 24-hours. I think that an important point to make is that this bit-for-bit copying (sans DeCSS) cannot be accomplished with readily available consumer devices... for starters, I have heard that currently available DVD-RW disks have a section burned out where the keys would go, so it is _impossible_ to make a bit-for-bit copy with one of these disks, since part of the medium is inaccessible. So, while a playable bit-for-bit copy can (theoretically) be made without decrypting the content, the tools to do so may be hard to come by, except in a large-scale industrial piracy operation. I hope that this is accurate, and I'm not contributing to the confusion... -Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 11:46:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07886 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:46:00 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA07883 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:45:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 19602 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 16:41:52 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 16:41:52 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA18097; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:46:11 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:46:11 -0800 Message-Id: <200002151646.IAA18097@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Boy, if this doesn't all sound like UCITA.... Rares Jason M. Felice wrote: >First, someone on this list used IANAL to (presumably) mean I Am Not A Lawyer. >Let me continue that little tradition: IANAL. (It this matter it's probably >best to announce this ;) > >I just have a few questions to throw out regarding the DVD license and the >pertinence of other things that I've heard relating to this. The answers >to some of these questions may be obvious to lawyers and similar, but they >aren't to me. > >First, what exactly are the terms of the license which a consumer implicitly >enters into by purchasing a DVD? Where are these consumer rights defined? >By copyright law? > >If that's the case, isn't the only plausible argument that the DVD-CA is >overstepping the protections afforded to it by copyright law/DMCA, with an >attempt to sidestep the courts to a small degree by using technological >means to enforce such overstepping, irregardless of whether the DVD-CA is >making an access-control and not a copy-protection argument? And the point >that the circumvention of the encryption was merely to perform operations >which would otherwise be considered fair use? > >Making such an argument would require the argument that certain consumer rights >were treaded upon, such as the right to play DVDs on your choice of platform >or the right to copy for backup purposes (like I copy my own CDs at home), >or even the right to competitive products regarding the DVD-CA monopoly >issue. > >I realize that the DMCA prevents circumvention of technological means >irregardless of what might be considered fair use (or so it seems from the >excerpts that I've seen and the comments which I've read), but that is >certainly flawed, as it gives software authors the ability to arbitrarily >determine fair use, effectively circumventing consumer protection laws and >affording those software authors the power to effectively write their own >laws. Practicality (including the practicality of confronting this in the >current case) aside, I think that needs to be shot down; while I have no >problem with copy-protection schemes on software or other media, I'd like >to have either the right to reverse-engineer and circumvent those methods >when they impede on my rights *OR* I'd like courts to have the ability to >keep up with technological advances well enough that I would have some >avenue to defend my rights as a consumer. (I am a software author, did I >mention?) > >Just how would you determine what your rights as a DVD consumer are? By >analizing the intent of the technological methods which protect it? >-Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice (jasonf@nacs.net) > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 11:57:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA12888 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:57:11 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA12865 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:57:05 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03057 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:57:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:57:07 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bit-for-bit copying Message-ID: <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu IANAL. On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:10:34AM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > As a technical issue, quite apart from its relevance to any legal > arguments that may incorporate such issues, I want to settle something. > > A -lot- of people, in various discussion forums but more importantly to > the press, have parrotted the "you can to a bit-for-bit copy" argument, > typically in support of the idea that CSS is "not about copying, but > about playback". This has been repeated in this mailing list a few > times in the past 24-hours. To explain where the argument about making bit-for-bit copies comes from (to the best of my knowledge): The argument is that studio-quality DVD recorders and blank DVD media will allow bit for bit recording, and DVD masters or originals have to be produced where you *can* burn the encryption key into the lead-in sector. Such thing have to exist for studios to be able to create DVDs, but I'm not sure the extent to which one is obtainable. It may be just licensed to the big eight members of the DVD-CA instead of (like most people expect) available for a fee like the high-quality CD-Rs which produce CDs readable by the "older" CD players. Not in defense of the argument, but I have to also note that you really, honestly, do NOT need to license CSS to produce the following if you were a manufacturer: 1) Recordable DVD media with the lead-in sector *NOT* burned out. 2) A bit-for-bit DVD copier which does not need to decode the data. A simple device. (anybody remember the old VHS copiers?) Since you do not need to license CSS, you wouldn't be bound by any agreement with the MPAA, although I'm quite certain they'd rush to sue you. The resulting DVD would be playable in any DVD player. It is actually sort of a well understood axiom of computer science that you can't prevent bit-for-bit copies of something which can be read; that understanding is probably the biggest contributor to this argument, but the axiom doesn't take into account things outside of computer science, such as a the MPAA/DVD-CA and it's lawyers :(. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 12:01:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA14679 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:01:50 -0500 Received: from dial153.roadrunner.com (dial153.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.153]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA14489 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:01:46 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial153.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01345 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:03:32 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:03:32 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bit-for-bit copying Message-ID: <20000215100331.A890@localhost> References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:10:34AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:10:34AM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > As a technical issue, quite apart from its relevance to any legal > arguments that may incorporate such issues, I want to settle something. > > A -lot- of people, in various discussion forums but more importantly to > the press, have parrotted the "you can to a bit-for-bit copy" argument, > typically in support of the idea that CSS is "not about copying, but > about playback". This has been repeated in this mailing list a few > times in the past 24-hours. > > There appear to be two positions frequently stated in our discussions > (both here and in Slashdot): (1) that bit-for-bit copying is possible > and a DVD player cannot tell the difference between a real and copied > DVD, and (2) that bit-for-bit copying is possible, and on the copied > version, it is not the copying that has been prevented, it is only the > playback that is prevented. (These are incompatible positions.) > > To put it bluntly, the first position - in my reading of the technical > descriptions of CSS - is patently false; the second position is pure > sophistry. Copying *of a playable DVD* HAS been prevented by CSS (in > the absence of DeCSS). We are not helping ourselves by parroting > arguments that can easily be exposed as false by the MPAA. (1) People running illegal industrial copying operations can make bit-for-bit copies that work in a DVD player. They can do this because the have access to different manufacturing equipment and supplies than most of us. (2) One could copy the encrypted data, but not the keys. This is not bit-for-bit of the whole disk (possibly because the key-sectors have been burned, but perhaps for other reasons), but it is very much a copyright violation. The DVD will not play in a stock player, but the copyrighted work (data) on the DVD can be played if the keys are available from somewhere else. One could (presumably for demonstration purposes, or maybe because you don't want the kids watching the movie) copy the keys off a legitimate DVD onto your palm pilot, and then burn the keys off the legal DVD. Now the original DVD is unplayable by the kids, because you've always got the palm with you. You can use DeCSS to play the movie. No copying of expressive material involved. The presence or absense of the keys is the sole factor controlling readability of the encrypted _data_ on the DVD. Copying the data or a key are two different actions. Data is protect by copyright. Keys cannot be copyrighted (the are not expressive). Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 12:19:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21847 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:19:04 -0500 Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21844 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:19:02 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29126 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:19:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04815 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:17:08 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000215112121.K5133@linuxpower.org> References: <20000215104351.G1781@nacs.net> <20000215112121.K5133@linuxpower.org> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:16:10 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: [dvd-discuss] My comments to the Copyright Office on 1201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [The U.S. Copyright Office has requested comments on the Adverse Impact on Noninfringing Uses from the 1201 Prohibition Against Circumvention of Access Control Technologies. The deadline is Feb. 17, 1000. For more information see http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html Here are my comments.] February 15, 2000 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office Washington D.C. Via E-mail to 1201@loc.gov Re: Docket No. RM 99-7A Comments to the U.S. Copyright Office on the Adverse Impact on Noninfringing Uses from the 1201 Prohibition Against Circumvention of Access Control Technologies I believe Title 17 Chapter 1201 radically shifts the balance of power between information producers and the public. Orwellian is the best word to describe this law. I hope it is completely overthrown on First Amendment grounds, but I realize that I am addressing the Copyright Office, not the Supreme Court. Accordingly I am offering a list of scenarios where 1201, and particularly 1201(a)(1), would undermine basic public rights to access and use information if this law comes into force without limitation. The New Iron Curtain Right now China has its own DVD zone. In the future, other repressive governments may insist that media players imported into their territory have a unique zone. Such governments may even demand that imported players only accept media that has a digital signature from a government censor. As new media device come to dominate information commerce, these governments will be able to totally control what movies, songs, political tracts, TV programs and news stories are available to their citizens. Any U.S. citizen who tried to create material that would bypass the censor would violate 1201(a)(1). Acid Paper CD manufacturers claim that CDs will last 100 years or more. Of course, no CD has been around any near that long. This 100 year claim is based on accelerated aging test, but such tests cannot account for unknown environmental factors or subtile chemical processes that could reduce the lifetimes. DVD have been around for even less time. Other media developed in the future may not even be designed to last that long. Currently copyright lasts for 90 years or more, and that duration may will be extended yet again (we have to protect Mickey Mouse, after all). Any library or collector that discovered its holding were deteriorating could be barred by 1201(a)(1) from doing anything about it until it was much too late. While there are similar issues affecting paper documents, there is at least some technology to retard the deterioration of paper. Digital media is a complete unknown. 8-Track Tape Some copyright material may be published on new media that ultimately fails in the market place. Libraries and other legitimate owners would have no way to play this material once obsolete players wore out. The original manufacturer might well be bankrupt. Other companies or organizations would be barred by 1201(a)(1) from designing compatible players. A library or other owner that attempted to transfer the information to another, playable medium, would also violate 1201(a)(1). This differs from any existing copyright situation in that here a library might own an intact copy of a work, but is barred from obtaining or creating a device to view that work. Present copyright law might prevent copying an 8-track tape onto a standard audio cassette, but it does not prevent a library from building an 8-track player. Revisionism Institutionalized In the past when an organization issued a public statement, it became part of the public record. In the future organizations can issue statements, advertisements, stock solicitations, etc. in the form of protected, time limited documents. If the statement proves to be embarrassing, inconvenient or otherwise problematical, they can simply erase it from their records or even alter it to eliminate the problem or to add exculpatory material. Anyone who kept a readable copy of the original that would catch their fraud, would violate 1201(a)(1). No More John Harvards Harvard University was named after John Harvard because he donated his library to the fledgling college. In the future scholarly material will be delivered to each professor in a format keyed to the professor's player or smart card. When he or she dies, no one will be able to access his or her lifetime of accumulated material per 1201(a)(1). Giuliani's Fundraising Letter An issue in the current New York Senate campaign is whether one candidate has espoused positions in his fundraising letters that differ from those he has stated in public. The public certainly has an interest in know about such behavior. In the future, politicians will deliver fund raising material using time limited, copyright protected media. An opposing candidate that attempts to introduce copies into the public debate would violate 1201(a)(1). The End of the Paper Trail Already companies are programming internal e-mail systems to erase e-mail from archives after a few months. In the future, companies will distribute internal memos in a time limited electronic format that can only be played on company computers. The software that plays these memos will not permit them to be saved in a neutral format. Any employee who tries to do so will violate 1201(a)(1). This will effectively eliminate the paper trail that is used to prosecute white-collar crime and end whistle blowing as we know it. There are other scenarios I could come up with: poison pen letters, blackmail, extortion, spouse abuse, etc. I fear we will discover other, more insidious, unintended consequences of this selfish law. Respectfully submitted, Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 12:19:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA22096 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:19:33 -0500 Received: from aynjalut.tam.cornell.edu (AYNJALUT.TAM.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.253.46]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA22093 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:19:32 -0500 Received: (from bsa3@localhost) by aynjalut.tam.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09811 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:19:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:19:51 -0500 From: Brad Ackerman To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse Message-ID: <20000215121951.A9463@cornell.edu> References: <20000215104351.G1781@nacs.net> <20000215112121.K5133@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000215112121.K5133@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:21:21AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:21:21AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: [re Brazil] > The interesting part is that only on the inside of the case, in the > little paper flyer they include with DVD's, does it point out that > this disc can only be played on a Region 1 player. I've also > checked fifteen other DVD's put out by various distributors; most of > them don't even go that far on the outside of the case. You have to > buy it, open it, and then you get to know your license rights. > There isn't even the above warning on the outer jacket. You know your license rights from the beginning -- if you buy it, you can watch it, and that's the whole point of this listserv. Region codes have nothing to do with it. > No wonder some countries have declared region codes illegal. And in many others they might as well be, because everyone has had their player fixed. Region codes only affect users who don't care about them. [Meaning that they have no effect whatsoever, I suppose, except to provide jobs for dozens of people.] -- Brad Ackerman N1MNB "You're a cyborg -- look it up." bsa3@cornell.edu Wandering Gweep -- Bradley Rhodes, to Josh Weaver PGP: 0x62D6B223 http://skaro.pair.com/ IAP lecture, 21 January 2000 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 12:19:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA22176 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:19:57 -0500 Received: from glacier.binc.net (glacier.binc.net [205.173.176.10]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA22168 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:19:56 -0500 Received: from menhir.oakmoon.net (msn-1-72.x2.binc.net [198.70.31.72]) by glacier.binc.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA13693 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:19:47 -0600 From: Bob James Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:19:47 GMT Message-ID: <20000215.17194700@menhir.oakmoon.net> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Potential weakness of the OpenLaw strategy To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; StarOffice/5.1; Linux) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id MAA22173 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It's terrific to see this process, the blending of open forum and the Law. It is important that we keep one thought in mind, but not be silenced by it. That thought is the knowledge that our opponents in this fight can hear us thinking, thanks to these lists. Liken it to a chess game where you have to think all your moves through aloud, state your reasons for choosing the move you did, and declare what your ultimate goal is in having made the move. All the while, you opponent can sit in silence, make his/her moves with a hidden strategy, and benefit from knowing where you're going to move next. Now please note, I am NOT saying that this "weakness" is fatal. Quite the reverse, really; the open forum brings a huge amount of distributed brainpower to bear on these cases, and that's a strength that I feel will overcome any weakness inherent in openly strategizing. (Is that a word?) -- Bob James IS Manager, Oriel Inc. http://www.orielinc.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 12:24:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA24129 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:24:50 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA24126 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:24:49 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id JAA28584 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:24:43 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:24:43 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse engineering in Sony vs. Con nectix Message-ID: <20000215092443.E4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <01C7F8610CB2D1119B1500805F9F5E8DE8A491@cantorms2.can.xerox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from ctembreull@earthlink.net on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:50:01AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chris Tembreull writes: > But the Playstation case (to return to my original point) *is* significant, > in that reverse engineering has been identified as protected industry. > Doesn't that make the law of the land inconsistent and open to challenge? Remember that there are two different legal attacks on DeCSS in the US, one on trade secrets and one on anticircumvention. A reverse engineering precedent is certainly useful in the trade secret case, but has no connection to anticircumvention. The DMCA doesn't concern itself with how you produce the anticircumvention device, or you how perform the act of circumvention. (Of course, the reverse engineering was done last year by an unknown person in an unknown country, so a 9th Circuit precedent this year may be totally irrelevant.) -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 12:26:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA24724 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:26:13 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA24721 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:26:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 6377 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 17:29:44 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:29:44 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts: Language Message-ID: <20000215122944.L5133@linuxpower.org> References: <20000215090314.D5133@linuxpower.org> <20000215093401.G5133@linuxpower.org> <20000215090642.A777@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000215090642.A777@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:06:42AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:06:42AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:34:01AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > At any rate, it still doesn't detract from the basic point, that the argument > > that encryption is just another language doesn't hold water. > > The _part_ of the argument in that post that makes reference to > _unknown_ languages relies on the fact that language can be used for > data privacy. It is not necessary for an encryption system to > provide all the features of language. It is only necessary for the > language to provide a modicum of privacy. The example does not > require if-and-only-if. First off, an unknown language isn't a language. By definition, more than one person needs to know a language for it to be a language. Ideas have to be communicated, grammar and syntax have to be observed. Without communication, it's gibberish. You are really, really reaching here. Try explaining, exactly and simply, how the primary purpose of language is privacy. The primary purpose of language, to anyone who isn't desperately trying to scrape up a "encryption is language" defense, is to communicate ideas. Exactly how does encryption do this? Encryption has the exact opposite purpose - to avoid the communication of ideas. It is a security measure, which can be used to create a condition of privacy. > > If we try, we will lose. Why? > > Perhaps. This is your opinion, nothing more. And are you countering it or are you dismissing it as "an opinion"? Tell me that you really think any judge who isn't stoned would buy this argument. > > Because data encryption is not equivalent to > > a foreign language. Why? Because the entire purpose of data encryption is > > to prevent the usage of that data in any way before first unmangling it. > > The fact that languages have other uses in no way detracts from the > point that they can also provide a measure of privacy. IFF is not a > requirement of the argument about the right to read. The > anti-circumvention provisions could just as well apply to a new, > invented "natural" language (in the same vein as Esperanto) as it does > to the CSS. Under the "anti-circumvention" provisions, it will be > illegal to learn and is _now_ illegal to teach (traffic in) > "Esperanto". Only if "Esperanto"'s primary purpose is to prevent unauthorized access control to a copyrighted work. If it's primary purpose is to communicate ideas, i.e. it's an actual language rather than a rationalized security measure, then no court would find it illegal to speak, teach or read it. It's speech then. If you and I were kicking back and talking in CSS, and CSS were a real medium for communicating ideas, then yes, this analogy would apply. Otherwise, you've abstracted yourself into irrelevance. What part of this is unclear? One is a medium meant to facilitate exchange, and the other is a measure designed to hamper exchange. Night and day. > > Data encryption is a security measure. > > I think it is important to maintain a distinction between _privacy_ > and _security_, because they are not the same thing. Data encryption > is a privacy measure. You can steal encrypted data (no security > guarantee), but if the encryption is "strong", you need the keys to > _read_ it (as long as you control the keys and the cryptosystem is > strong, you have privacy). Encryption is a security measure that applies to intellectual property, not to the physical file itself. Privacy is a secondary condition created by adequate security measures. (Exchange "privacy" and "security" all you want - the fact remains that one is a measure and the other is a condition created by adequate measures.) The security measure applies to the intellectual property, which has not been stolen if all you have is encrypted files. In that case, you've stolen data and are probably guilty of unauthorized computer intrusion - different crime, not necessarily IP-related. If you steal encrypted files but can't unencrypt them, you're guilty of theft. If you take freely available encrypted datasets and decrypt them without authorization, you are guilty of theft of intellectual property according to Section 12. > Access control, anyone? > > Wants pawn term dare worsted ladle gull hoe lift wetter murder, inner > ladle cordage, itch offer lodge dock florist. Disk ladle gull orphan > worry putty ladle rat hut wetter ladle rat cluck and fur disk raisin, > pimple colder ladle rat rotten hut. Funny, I don't see ideas being communicated here. I would have to say, yes, this is access control if all you're doing is using a substitution cipher, employing english words to code a copyrighted work. The method doesn't matter, except in terms of "effective" security. Sure, you could use a natural language to do this. But the system by which you are using that language is not the language itself. It's called grammar and syntax. Encryption is designed to mangle grammar and syntax beyond recognition; without legible grammar and syntax you do not have language. No ideas are being communicated. Without communication - i.e., without grammar and syntax - you don't have a language. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 12:35:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29182 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:35:11 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA29178 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:35:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 6387 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 17:38:43 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:38:43 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Message-ID: <20000215123843.M5133@linuxpower.org> References: <200002151626.IAA16131@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002151626.IAA16131@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:26:30AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:26:30AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > >At any rate, it still doesn't detract from the basic point, that the argument > >that encryption is just another language doesn't hold water. Language > >naturally serves to facilitate communication and to communicate ideas. > >Encryption is a security measure that aims at exactly the opposite goal. > > Encryption is the intent to hide. Encryption is an act. A language in and of itself is a bunch of symbols. A language is an object. Translating purely from one language to another is just that the act of translation. > Translation with intent to hide IS encryption. Encryption is not the intent. It is the method. Language is not "a bunch of symbols". It is also the rules by which those symbols are used to communicate ideas. Those rules are called grammar. Encrypted data has no grammar; that's the whole point of encryption. Cryptologists are pretty clear on this point. > In fact, the wide access to information would make "encryption stupid" :) > > Don't get caught up in details. On the one hand ignoring details gets us fighting on the in the wrong case. On the other hand only counting on details gets us fighting in their court. That's backwards. It's their responsibility to prove guilt. We just need to knock every argument down. But we need to be driven forward by the larger picture this case represents. The freedom to compete. The DMCA hurts competition badly, forget the copyright infringement, or the bypassing of security measures. > > The details of this case are sorta important. Anyone who still thinks differently is bound to see the copy-protection/access-control thing as "just a detail", when in fact that detail is the entire issue. You break security measures - or win legal cases - by finding the little details that have been overlooked and then exploiting the hell out of them. Going into court screaming about the bigger picture while ignoring the fine details just makes you look like an idiot. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 12:42:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA32717 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:42:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@w129.z208177180.chi-il.dsl.cnc.net [208.177.180.129]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA32713 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:42:47 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16244 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:42:15 -0600 Message-ID: <38A98FF2.1A11383E@bigbrother.net> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:42:11 -0600 From: Steve Stearns X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Potential weakness of the OpenLaw strategy References: <20000215.17194700@menhir.oakmoon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Now please note, I am NOT saying that this "weakness" is fatal. Quite > the reverse, really; the open forum brings a huge amount of > distributed brainpower to bear on these cases, and that's a strength > that I feel will overcome any weakness inherent in openly > strategizing. (Is that a word?) Basically you make the gamble that through the collective open effort you can come up with arguments that cannot be easily disputed even if they know what they are in advance. One thing to consider is that as we discuss the issues here, it would be helpful for some people to come at this from the MPAA's perspective and try to play devil's advocate with the list. That might help give us some insight into what they can come back with. ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:02:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA12423 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:02:18 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA12409 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:02:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 6465 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 18:05:50 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:05:50 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse Message-ID: <20000215130550.P5133@linuxpower.org> References: <20000215104351.G1781@nacs.net> <20000215112121.K5133@linuxpower.org> <20000215121951.A9463@cornell.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000215121951.A9463@cornell.edu>; from Brad Ackerman on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:19:51PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:19:51PM -0500, Brad Ackerman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:21:21AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > [re Brazil] > > The interesting part is that only on the inside of the case, in the > > little paper flyer they include with DVD's, does it point out that > > this disc can only be played on a Region 1 player. I've also > > checked fifteen other DVD's put out by various distributors; most of > > them don't even go that far on the outside of the case. You have to > > buy it, open it, and then you get to know your license rights. > > There isn't even the above warning on the outer jacket. > > You know your license rights from the beginning -- if you buy it, you > can watch it, and that's the whole point of this listserv. Region > codes have nothing to do with it. An a priori license? I don't think so. By that argument no statements of license should be necessary, anywhere at all, because people should simply "know". Truth is, as this listserv and many others around the world right now are showing, what a lot of people *thought* were their rights may in fact not actually exist. People don't "know their rights from the beginning". A lot of people wouldn't have bought DVDs if they had known that their legal rights were so damned narrow. > > No wonder some countries have declared region codes illegal. > > And in many others they might as well be, because everyone has had > their player fixed. Region codes only affect users who don't care > about them. [Meaning that they have no effect whatsoever, I suppose, > except to provide jobs for dozens of people.] This isn't true. Region coding was put into place for two reasons. One, because films opened in different countries at different times, and this prevents importing a DVD from the U.S. at the same time the movie hits the screens in the U.K. Two, because economic situations in different countries are vastly different; this allows the U.S. entertainment industry to ban an import market in those countries in which they choose to price the DVD higher. Otherwise, you could import thousands of cheap but legal copies of DVD media from India and bring the effective market cost of DVD down to the VHS level. I'd say it affects a lot more users than the ones who don't care; I'd say it affects any user who questions why they have to pay $40 for a DVD. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:06:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14490 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:06:26 -0500 Received: from dial223.roadrunner.com (dial223.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.223]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14448 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:06:23 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial223.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01936 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:09:18 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:09:11 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Justifications for the right to read Message-ID: <20000215110911.B890@localhost> References: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:47:11PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I want to circulate ideas on establishing a basis or rational for the right to read. Perhaps the greatest difficulty here is the (near) absense of references to "reading" in legal discussions of the First Amendment and copyright. Most discussions take the right to read as an unstated axiom. Unfortunately for us, data encryption (i.e. "access control") is most directly related to the right to read, and not to the right to publish. This means that there are few (or no) precedents that clearly discuss the importance of the right to read. - Prior restraint: the right of the public to read is taken as an assumption. An axiomatic right to read, whose removal would have the same effect as prior restraint, should be regulated as prior restraint. Problem: a private party uses state authority to decide what is restrained. Prior restraint law address gov't restraint of speech. - Equal protection. Some parties are forbidden to read, while others are not. The basis of this distinction has nothing to do with compelling state interest. Problem: same as above. - No constitutional authority. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" cannot include legislation to outlaw some reading, because it is not possible for limitations on the reading of published and generally available documents to promote progress. Problem: ? - The concept of fair-use is meaningless if the right to read is removed. There are subcategories here: scholarship, performance, etc. Problem: ? - The regulation of some reading is made without reference to the content of the speech, and so cannot reflect a compelling state interest. Problem: Public law/private actors. - No exemption on "trafficking in circumvention devices" infringes on academic freedom. Problems: ? - There is no historical basis in Anglo-American law to prohibit the reading of published books. Only precedent is Renaissance Catholic Church's prohibitions against reading, and punishment of readers. Historical origins Inquisition. Problems: History is big, and I'm not sure there are no examples in British history of prosectution for reading. - The right to read published material is historically unlimited. Amendment Ten prohibits the revokation of this right. Problems: ? - Partial correspondence between prohibition on reading a book and taking that book. Problem: you can't copy a book you don't have, but you can copy an encrypted book. - Regulation of reading is like regulation of public library use. Problem: ? Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:06:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14708 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:06:45 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14705 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:06:44 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA13403 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:08:26 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002151808.KAA13403@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:08:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20000215090314.D5133@linuxpower.org> from "greslin@linuxpower.org" at Feb 15, 2000 09:03:14 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:53:17PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > Sorry if this is a bit rough, but I'm getting tired, but this point > > is _really_ important in my view. So I have my say now rather than later. > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:05:30AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > Irrelevant. This has never been about copyright infringement. > > > This is about the > > [ ... ] > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:37:04PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > > > > The Ban on paraphernalia Argument > > > > > > > > Stealing is illegal, reading is not. CSS doesn't stop copying > > > > anymore than writing in German stops a photocopier from copying. > > [ ... ] > > > Irrelevant. Same reasons as above. > > > > No, it is _very_ relevant. The part of the example that should be used to > > challenge the law is about an unknown language, _not_ the photocopying. I > > mentioned photocopying in the original example because I had to draw > > a distinction between what is all over the press (i.e. "piracy") > > and what the function of CSS and DeCSS are in relation to > > "anti-circumvention" and "trafficking in anti-circumvention" > > devices. You are correct that this issue as far as the law is > > concerned in _not_ infringement. But that is exactly what I've been > > saying all along, and that is exactly what the forgien language > > example is about! "Anticircumvention" is removal of the right to read. > > As far as I remember, only Amendment I and the copyright clause > > grant or deny any power to Congress regarding speech. "Anti- > > circumvention" makes it illegal to, effectively, learn or teach > > German/Chinese/whatever. Congress has no authority to prohibit > > this under the copyright clause, and hopefully we can show that it > > must be protected under Amend. I. > > > If we try, we will lose. Why? Because data encryption is not equivalent to > a foreign language. Why? Because the entire purpose of data encryption is > to prevent the usage of that data in any way before first unmangling it. > Data encryption is a security measure. Foreign languages are not, except to > amazingly stupid. Language as encryption is just another encoding meant to obscure the meaning of information that you are not familiar with. It has been effectively used as such IN PRACTICE. To merely dismiss it out of hand without a bit more detail in your dismissal is not useful. > > What Section 12 says - and what Kaplan has been stating in court - is that > a copyright owner has the right to this security measure in order to protect > their rights. No different from a federal law defining criminal penalties > for unauthorized computer intrusion. Except this law isn't being used to prevent or punish unlawful access to anyone's property. That's rather the whole point. > > Personally, I think Section 12 have some very serious constitutional issues. > But I'm not convinced that we can win a constitutional challenge on the > First. I think the legal target should probably be fair use (defined in Title > 17 and court precedent, not the Constitution), and whether or not a copyright > owner has the right to totally eliminate it for security reasons. > > We could probably win this without leaving Title 17. [deletia] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:15:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA18757 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:15:07 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA18754 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:15:05 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA13487 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:16:48 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002151816.KAA13487@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:16:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20000215093401.G5133@linuxpower.org> from "greslin@linuxpower.org" at Feb 15, 2000 09:34:01 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:16:57PM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > > If we try, we will lose. Why? Because data encryption is not equivalent to > > > a foreign language. Why? Because the entire purpose of data encryption is > > > to prevent the usage of that data in any way before first unmangling it. > > > Data encryption is a security measure. Foreign languages are not, except to > > > amazingly stupid. > > > > One gripe with this: The US military used this "amazingly stupid" security > > measure to great effect in World War II when they used the Navajo Indians' > > unwritten language as a form of "encryption". > > In 1940, it wasn't amazingly stupid. Today it would be; access to information > is far greater today than it was then. Amazing the difference sixty years > makes. > > At any rate, it still doesn't detract from the basic point, that the argument > that encryption is just another language doesn't hold water. Language > naturally serves to facilitate communication and to communicate ideas. > Encryption is a security measure that aims at exactly the opposite goal. Encryption still serves to facilitate communication. It must do so in order to be useful. It's just a form of language that is meant to be obscure. In this case, it is very much like Navajo. The analogy is further strengthened here by the fact that the particular 'encryption' employed here was/is 'absurd' in the presence of a modern level of knowledge and communications. Thus, any device and any software that is licenced and intended by the MPAA must be capable of doing this linguistic translation. All those devices do that as a necessary step before playing the media. Some of them even deposit the results into readable system memory. Beyond the legal language of the DMCA, the only issue here is the breaking of an un-patent regarding the building of yet another device/program that does what every other similar device/program does. Since CSS doesn't keep anyone from doing a bit level copy of the disk, it's not really access control at all. It's sort of an odd sort of patent on the players. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:17:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19539 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:17:09 -0500 Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts1.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.139]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19536 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:17:08 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.224.88]) by tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000215181655.VMYT13123.tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:16:55 -0500 Message-ID: <38A998FF.AF7EC096@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:20:47 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bit-for-bit copying References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215100331.A890@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'm a bit confused by your response - everything you say is true, but I don't see what it has to do with my point: Paul Fenimore wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:10:34AM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > > As a technical issue, quite apart from its relevance to any legal > > arguments that may incorporate such issues, I want to settle something. > > > > A -lot- of people, in various discussion forums but more importantly to > > the press, have parrotted the "you can to a bit-for-bit copy" argument, > > typically in support of the idea that CSS is "not about copying, but > > about playback". This has been repeated in this mailing list a few > > times in the past 24-hours. > > > > There appear to be two positions frequently stated in our discussions > > (both here and in Slashdot): (1) that bit-for-bit copying is possible > > and a DVD player cannot tell the difference between a real and copied > > DVD, and (2) that bit-for-bit copying is possible, and on the copied > > version, it is not the copying that has been prevented, it is only the > > playback that is prevented. (These are incompatible positions.) > > > > To put it bluntly, the first position - in my reading of the technical > > descriptions of CSS - is patently false; the second position is pure > > sophistry. Copying *of a playable DVD* HAS been prevented by CSS (in > > the absence of DeCSS). We are not helping ourselves by parroting > > arguments that can easily be exposed as false by the MPAA. > > (1) People running illegal industrial copying operations can make > bit-for-bit copies that work in a DVD player. They can do this because > the have access to different manufacturing equipment and supplies than > most of us. Of course this is true, and this ought to have been a deciding factor in the 'irreparable harm' stage of the injunction hearing, but has little relevance to the point I was making. Yes: people with access to the right equipment and blank DVDs that do not have the key sector pre-embossed can make a workable bit-for-bit copy. But CSS was designed to prevent copying by people who generally don't have access to anything other than consumer blank DVD's. In this circumstance, CSS works as directed. > (2) One could copy the encrypted data, but not the keys. This is not > bit-for-bit of the whole disk (possibly because the key-sectors have > been burned, but perhaps for other reasons), but it is very much > a copyright violation. The DVD will not play in a stock player, > but the copyrighted work (data) on the DVD can be played if the keys are > available from somewhere else. Whether it is a copyright violation or not has nothing to do with my point. -Of course- it is still a copyright violation to copy a DVD that you're not going to be able to use: CSS is a recognition that despite the fact that anyone who pirates a DVD is a copyright infringer, but those infringers are unlikely to be caught: CSS creates a disincentive to do the copying which, whether it is playable or not, is a copyright violation. This is so obvious - why am I arguing it? > The presence or absense of the keys is the sole factor controlling > readability of the encrypted _data_ on the DVD. > > Copying the data or a key are two different actions. Data is > protect by copyright. Keys cannot be copyrighted (the are not > expressive). I'm not sure why this is relevant - could you elaborate? -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:20:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21422 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:20:50 -0500 Received: from mia.co.uk (mail.mia.co.uk [195.152.234.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21418 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:20:48 -0500 Received: from viruswall.mia.co.uk ([10.1.1.9]) by gateway.mia.co.uk with SMTP id <115202>; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:21:38 +0000 Received: from 10.1.1.2 by viruswall.mia.co.uk (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:20:23 -0000 (GMT Standard Time) Received: by mail.mia.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1PB20Q7S>; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:19:53 -0000 Message-ID: <04DD95EB6E9FD31199D400A0C9A6CFFF54D68A@mail.mia.co.uk> From: "Simpson, Sam" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:21:37 +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu (First post to the list so "Hi!") > -----Original Message----- > From: JEDIDIAH [mailto:jedi@penguin.lvcablemodem.com] > Sent: 15 February 2000 18:14 > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts > > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:53:17PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > Sorry if this is a bit rough, but I'm getting tired, but > this point > > > is _really_ important in my view. So I have my say now > rather than later. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:05:30AM -0500, > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > Irrelevant. This has never been about copyright infringement. > > > > This is about the > > > [ ... ] > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:37:04PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > > > > > The Ban on paraphernalia Argument > > > > > > > > > > Stealing is illegal, reading is not. CSS doesn't > stop copying > > > > > anymore than writing in German stops a photocopier > from copying. > > > [ ... ] > > > > Irrelevant. Same reasons as above. > > > > > > No, it is _very_ relevant. The part of the example that > should be used to > > > challenge the law is about an unknown language, _not_ the > photocopying. I > > > mentioned photocopying in the original example because I > had to draw > > > a distinction between what is all over the press (i.e. "piracy") > > > and what the function of CSS and DeCSS are in relation to > > > "anti-circumvention" and "trafficking in anti-circumvention" > > > devices. You are correct that this issue as far as the law is > > > concerned in _not_ infringement. But that is exactly what > I've been > > > saying all along, and that is exactly what the forgien language > > > example is about! "Anticircumvention" is removal of the > right to read. > > > As far as I remember, only Amendment I and the copyright clause > > > grant or deny any power to Congress regarding speech. "Anti- > > > circumvention" makes it illegal to, effectively, learn or teach > > > German/Chinese/whatever. Congress has no authority to prohibit > > > this under the copyright clause, and hopefully we can show that it > > > must be protected under Amend. I. > > > > > > If we try, we will lose. Why? Because data encryption is > not equivalent to > > a foreign language. Why? Because the entire purpose of > data encryption is > > to prevent the usage of that data in any way before first > unmangling it. > > Data encryption is a security measure. Foreign languages > are not, except to > > amazingly stupid. > > Language as encryption is just another encoding meant to > obscure the meaning of information that you are not familiar > with. It has been effectively used as such IN PRACTICE. To > merely dismiss it out of hand without a bit more detail in > your dismissal is not useful. Indeed. Read about the Navajo talkers in any good book covering the history of cryptography. The Navajo are a native American tribe who had their own language which was completely undocumented outside of the tribe. During WWII they were deployed as human Encryptors & Decryptors. Thus I think it is fair to say that in some instances foreign languages can be reasonably seen as encryption. Regards, Sam Simpson Communications Analyst -- http://www.scramdisk.clara.net/ for ScramDisk hard-drive encryption & Delphi Crypto Components. PGP Keys available at the same site. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:21:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21592 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:21:07 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21575 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:21:06 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA13593 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:22:48 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002151822.KAA13593@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:22:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20000215104351.G1781@nacs.net> from "Jason M. Felice" at Feb 15, 2000 10:43:51 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [deletia] > laws. Practicality (including the practicality of confronting this in the > current case) aside, I think that needs to be shot down; while I have no > problem with copy-protection schemes on software or other media, I'd like > to have either the right to reverse-engineer and circumvent those methods > when they impede on my rights *OR* I'd like courts to have the ability to > keep up with technological advances well enough that I would have some > avenue to defend my rights as a consumer. (I am a software author, did I > mention?) > > Just how would you determine what your rights as a DVD consumer are? By > analizing the intent of the technological methods which protect it? Perhaps we should start informing people of what few companies are pressing 'open' media and start a publicity campaign against encrypted DVD and encrypted DVD-Audio. We should be fighting this situation in the market as well as in the courts. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:26:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23486 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:26:41 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23482 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:26:39 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA13626 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:28:22 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002151828.KAA13626@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bit-for-bit copying To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:28:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> from "Ian Hay" at Feb 15, 2000 11:10:34 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > As a technical issue, quite apart from its relevance to any legal > arguments that may incorporate such issues, I want to settle something. > > A -lot- of people, in various discussion forums but more importantly to > the press, have parrotted the "you can to a bit-for-bit copy" argument, > typically in support of the idea that CSS is "not about copying, but > about playback". This has been repeated in this mailing list a few > times in the past 24-hours. > > There appear to be two positions frequently stated in our discussions > (both here and in Slashdot): (1) that bit-for-bit copying is possible > and a DVD player cannot tell the difference between a real and copied > DVD, and (2) that bit-for-bit copying is possible, and on the copied > version, it is not the copying that has been prevented, it is only the > playback that is prevented. (These are incompatible positions.) > > To put it bluntly, the first position - in my reading of the technical > descriptions of CSS - is patently false; the second position is pure > sophistry. Copying *of a playable DVD* HAS been prevented by CSS (in > the absence of DeCSS). We are not helping ourselves by parroting > arguments that can easily be exposed as false by the MPAA. In order to master, press and verify disks, one simply must have all the necessary tools in order to be able to take someone else's product, 'verify' it and then 're-master' it. This is no different than floppy based copy protection schemes for game disks in the 80's and the corresponding piracy tools. The only thing lacking at this point (relative to the 80's game piracy situation) is wide access to the production hardware. > > Unfortunately, the first position is widely believed, largely due to the > stature and prominence of those who have stated it. From ESR's > widely-read letter on the subject: [deletia] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:26:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23528 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:26:53 -0500 Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts1.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.139]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23525 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:26:53 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.224.88]) by tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000215182641.VOYY13123.tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:26:41 -0500 Message-ID: <38A99B49.D37247BD@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:30:33 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bit-for-bit copying References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > Not in defense of the argument, but > I have to also note that you really, honestly, do NOT need to license CSS to > produce the following if you were a manufacturer: > > 1) Recordable DVD media with the lead-in sector *NOT* burned out. > 2) A bit-for-bit DVD copier which does not need to decode the data. A > simple device. (anybody remember the old VHS copiers?) > > Since you do not need to license CSS, you wouldn't be bound by any agreement > with the MPAA, although I'm quite certain they'd rush to sue you. But these two cases are totally irrelevant: the MPAA is -only- interested in (a) encrypted DVD's, and (b) the integrity of CSS when attempts to copy are made onto DVD media where the lead-in sector *are* burned out. This case simply has nothing to do with unencrypted DVDs (which exist) and what I will term "industrial" rather than "consumer" blank media. > The resulting DVD would be playable in any DVD player. > > It is actually sort of a well understood axiom of computer science that you > can't prevent bit-for-bit copies of something which can be read; that > understanding is probably the biggest contributor to this argument, but the > axiom doesn't take into account things outside of computer science, such as > a the MPAA/DVD-CA and it's lawyers :(. Well, then people are going to have go 'get' that the well understood axiom simply doesn't apply in this case if we're going to construct plausible arguments. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:27:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23692 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:27:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (wseltzer@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23688 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:27:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:27:20 -0500 (EST) From: Wendy Seltzer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] New Announcements List Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seeing the high volume this discussion list is generating -- which is great -- I have created a second list, dvd-announce, for announcements only. The announcement list will be very low volume -- only periodic digests of the arguments being developed and updates on the status of the cases and the forum. Subscribe by web at or by emailing majordomo@eon.law.harvard.edu the body text "subscribe dvd-announce" Thanks. Now back to the substantive discussion. --Wendy wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:37:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA26928 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:37:13 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA26923 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:37:10 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA13780 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:38:53 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002151838.KAA13780@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bit-for-bit copying To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:38:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <38A998FF.AF7EC096@sympatico.ca> from "Ian Hay" at Feb 15, 2000 01:20:47 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > I'm a bit confused by your response - everything you say is true, but I > don't see what it has to do with my point: > > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:10:34AM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > > > As a technical issue, quite apart from its relevance to any legal > > > arguments that may incorporate such issues, I want to settle something. > > > > > > A -lot- of people, in various discussion forums but more importantly to > > > the press, have parrotted the "you can to a bit-for-bit copy" argument, > > > typically in support of the idea that CSS is "not about copying, but > > > about playback". This has been repeated in this mailing list a few > > > times in the past 24-hours. > > > > > > There appear to be two positions frequently stated in our discussions > > > (both here and in Slashdot): (1) that bit-for-bit copying is possible > > > and a DVD player cannot tell the difference between a real and copied > > > DVD, and (2) that bit-for-bit copying is possible, and on the copied > > > version, it is not the copying that has been prevented, it is only the > > > playback that is prevented. (These are incompatible positions.) > > > > > > To put it bluntly, the first position - in my reading of the technical > > > descriptions of CSS - is patently false; the second position is pure > > > sophistry. Copying *of a playable DVD* HAS been prevented by CSS (in > > > the absence of DeCSS). We are not helping ourselves by parroting > > > arguments that can easily be exposed as false by the MPAA. > > > > (1) People running illegal industrial copying operations can make > > bit-for-bit copies that work in a DVD player. They can do this because > > the have access to different manufacturing equipment and supplies than > > most of us. > > Of course this is true, and this ought to have been a deciding factor in > the 'irreparable harm' stage of the injunction hearing, but has little > relevance to the point I was making. Yes: people with access to the > right equipment and blank DVDs that do not have the key sector > pre-embossed can make a workable bit-for-bit copy. But CSS was designed > to prevent copying by people who generally don't have access to anything > other than consumer blank DVD's. In this circumstance, CSS works as > directed. Actually, it is quite clear from Valenti's interview in Salon that this is not what he thinks the purpose of CSS is. He seems to be under the dellusion that once it is viable to send 10G files over the internet, people won't merely be able to send bitlevel copies of DVD disks over the net and then master them locally. He gives the impression of thinking that CSS is a lot more successful than it is. Also, there's a philisophical issue here of whether or not you believe more real harm is coming to the industry from the professional pirates or the casual amatuers. [deletia] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:37:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA26931 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:37:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@w129.z208177180.chi-il.dsl.cnc.net [208.177.180.129]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA26927 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:37:13 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16269 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:36:41 -0600 Message-ID: <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:36:37 -0600 From: Steve Stearns X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu My feeling is that the MPAA's strategy is going to hinge on the future growth of technology. Right now it is very difficult (perhaps impossible) for the average consumer to copy DVD's and distribute them over the Internet. By the same token (and I guarantee the MPAA will bring it up), a few years ago it was very difficult for the average consumer to copy CD's and distribute them over the Internet. But now, the technology makes it very easy. Anybody can pick up a CD burner for cheap, or So, the MPAA is going to go into court and talk about how they won't be able to afford to make movies anymore because of the mass copying and distribution that will be possible in the future. This fear is probably well justified frankly. Their entire means for making money is based on the control of the distribution and reproduction of their intellectual property. Now, does DeCSS allow you to decode a DVD and then use that to upload it to the Internet? Yes. Now, granted, right now, the bandwidth available makes sending DVD quality video across the Internet a ridiculous idea, but, we need to look at the future of it. So, I would repharse the question like this: does DeCSS allow you to do something with DVD's that is otherwise not possible? That is to say, can you decode a DVD and put it on the Internet for all to see without using DeCSS? Also, does it make decoding the DVD SIGNIFICANTLY easier than was possible before its existence? If it does make it possible or significantly easier to decode a DVD and distribute it over the Internet, then that could be a big hole in any technology arguments that are made against the MPAA. The issue of duplicaitng DVD's is important, but I think the MPAA's greatest fear is to see the DVD version of Napster coming out a few years down the road. ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:41:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27957 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:41:19 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27952 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:41:17 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA13816 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:43:00 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002151843.KAA13816@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bit-for-bit copying To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:43:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <38A99B49.D37247BD@sympatico.ca> from "Ian Hay" at Feb 15, 2000 01:30:33 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > "Jason M. Felice" wrote: [deletia] > > The resulting DVD would be playable in any DVD player. > > > > It is actually sort of a well understood axiom of computer science that you > > can't prevent bit-for-bit copies of something which can be read; that > > understanding is probably the biggest contributor to this argument, but the > > axiom doesn't take into account things outside of computer science, such as > > a the MPAA/DVD-CA and it's lawyers :(. > > Well, then people are going to have go 'get' that the well understood > axiom simply doesn't apply in this case if we're going to construct > plausible arguments. Yes it does. Consumer grade technology simply hasn't caught up yet. Then again, consumer grade tech really isn't up to the task of fully exploiting the content decrypted by decss either. The MPAA brings up this 'spectre' to their benefit and I think we should too, making sure that all aspects of the 'spectre' are fully explored. Judges should be made to understand that the situation isn't as one sided (in favor of the MPAA position). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:49:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30723 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:49:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@w129.z208177180.chi-il.dsl.cnc.net [208.177.180.129]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30720 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:49:00 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16277 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:48:28 -0600 Message-ID: <38A99F7C.C8DED884@bigbrother.net> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:48:28 -0600 From: Steve Stearns X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse References: <200002151822.KAA13593@penguin.lvcm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Perhaps we should start informing people of what few companies > are pressing 'open' media and start a publicity campaign against > encrypted DVD and encrypted DVD-Audio. We should be fighting this > situation in the market as well as in the courts. Good idea in theory, but there are a huge number of problems with this: 1) The vast majority of the content that people want (movies, CD's, etc) are controlled by the MPAA or similar industry associations who don't want open media. 2) The vast majority of people in the world don't concern themselves with HOW the media is played. All they care about is that they can buy a copy of a movie and watch it. The only time it becomes an issue is if they try to buy a DVD with a different regional encoding which I suspect effects very few people. 3) There is no competing standard that provides similar capabilities but with an open approach to the technology. All the people who went out and bought DVD's aren't going to go out and buy something else unless there is a strong incentive beyond the principle of open media (i.e. must be better quality/price). 4) Any competing standard would need to get the blessing of the MPAA for it to have any content available. The big reason CSS exists in the first place was because the MPAA and similar groups were getting really nervous about having perfect copies of their movies in homes (at least with VHS, the copies nautrally degrade as they are repeatedly copied). I mean frankly, I understand the issues, and I own a DVD player and find that the quality of the playback to be excellent and the price to be very reasonable. I would much rather fight the battle on the turf of DVD than trying to make up a new standard to defeat it. That way my library of movies is still useful, and I don't have to go shell out more money for a player. ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 13:49:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30974 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:49:50 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30971 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:49:49 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA14058 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:51:31 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002151851.KAA14058@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:51:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> from "Steve Stearns" at Feb 15, 2000 12:36:37 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > My feeling is that the MPAA's strategy is going to hinge on the future growth of > technology. Right now it is very difficult (perhaps impossible) for the average > consumer to copy DVD's and distribute them over the Internet. By the same token > (and I guarantee the MPAA will bring it up), a few years ago it was very > difficult for the average consumer to copy CD's and distribute them over the > Internet. But now, the technology makes it very easy. Anybody can pick up a CD > burner for cheap, or > > So, the MPAA is going to go into court and talk about how they won't be able to > afford to make movies anymore because of the mass copying and distribution that > will be possible in the future. This fear is probably well justified frankly. This is something else to explore. Does the MPAA have 'right to profit'. The free market is supposed to be somewhat Darwinian and perhaps we have reached a point where companies will either adapt or die. The MPAA is trying to prevent the world from changing through abusing the law. Should the state choose to be a tool in this process? Is it in the ultimate public interest to do so? Perhaps it's time for Hollywood to die. > Their entire means for making money is based on the control of the distribution > and reproduction of their intellectual property. > > Now, does DeCSS allow you to decode a DVD and then use that to upload it to the > Internet? Yes. Now, granted, right now, the bandwidth available makes sending > DVD quality video across the Internet a ridiculous idea, but, we need to look at > the future of it. So, I would repharse the question like this: does DeCSS allow > you to do something with DVD's that is otherwise not possible? That is to say, > can you decode a DVD and put it on the Internet for all to see without using > DeCSS? Also, does it make decoding the DVD SIGNIFICANTLY easier than was > possible before its existence? > > If it does make it possible or significantly easier to decode a DVD and > distribute it over the Internet, then that could be a big hole in any technology > arguments that are made against the MPAA. The issue of duplicaitng DVD's is > important, but I think the MPAA's greatest fear is to see the DVD version of > Napster coming out a few years down the road. We used to trade bit level copies of copy protected floppies for the ST when I was a kid. These bit level copies could then be 'burned' onto the media of the day. The 'tech progress' argument can go both ways. It can both futher facilitate the exchange of decrypted movie data as well as the exchange of bitlevel copied encrypted data, making CSS moot. I suppose it could be possible to create a virtual DVD device such that one could 'mount' an bulk DVD image in the same manner that you would loopback mount an iso 9660 image and then apply a conventional, licenced DVD player to it. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 14:05:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA05263 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:05:18 -0500 Received: from smtp.mail.yahoo.com (smtp.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.32]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA05251 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:05:16 -0500 Received: from gatekeeper.ce9.uscourts.gov (HELO rocketmail.com) (207.41.18.130) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 11:05:31 -0800 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <38A9A3BA.4B87C092@rocketmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:06:34 -0800 From: Ian Crosby X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Potential weakness of the OpenLaw strategy References: <20000215.17194700@menhir.oakmoon.net> <38A98FF2.1A11383E@bigbrother.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In law, as in software, there is no security in secrecy. If your argument has a subtle but nonobvious flaw, it will be found, if not by opposing counsel, then by some smart appellate judge. Steve Stearns wrote: > > > Now please note, I am NOT saying that this "weakness" is fatal. Quite > > the reverse, really; the open forum brings a huge amount of > > distributed brainpower to bear on these cases, and that's a strength > > that I feel will overcome any weakness inherent in openly > > strategizing. (Is that a word?) > > Basically you make the gamble that through the collective open effort you can > come up with arguments that cannot be easily disputed even if they know what > they are in advance. > > One thing to consider is that as we discuss the issues here, it would be > helpful for some people to come at this from the MPAA's perspective and try > to play devil's advocate with the list. That might help give us some insight > into what they can come back with. > > ---Steve -- Ian B. Crosby icrosby@rocketmail.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 14:11:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08054 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:11:47 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08029 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:11:45 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA14177 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:13:28 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002151913.LAA14177@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Appeal Court decision upholds Reverse To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:13:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <38A99F7C.C8DED884@bigbrother.net> from "Steve Stearns" at Feb 15, 2000 12:48:28 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Perhaps we should start informing people of what few companies > > are pressing 'open' media and start a publicity campaign against > > encrypted DVD and encrypted DVD-Audio. We should be fighting this > > situation in the market as well as in the courts. > > Good idea in theory, but there are a huge number of problems with this: > > 1) The vast majority of the content that people want (movies, CD's, etc) are > controlled by the MPAA or similar industry associations who don't want open > media. > > 2) The vast majority of people in the world don't concern themselves with > HOW the media is played. All they care about is that they can buy a copy of a > movie and watch it. The only time it becomes an issue is if they try to buy a > DVD with a different regional encoding which I suspect effects very few people. > > 3) There is no competing standard that provides similar capabilities but with > an open approach to the technology. All the people who went out and bought > DVD's aren't going to go out and buy something else unless there is a strong > incentive beyond the principle of open media (i.e. must be better > quality/price). Actually, there is: it's just DVD sans encryption. There are supposed to be a few of those around. These titles tend to get discussed in the decss oriented discussion lists. [deletia] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 14:13:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08969 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:13:28 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA08966 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:13:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 6565 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 19:16:59 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:16:59 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Message-ID: <20000215141659.A6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000215093401.G5133@linuxpower.org> <200002151816.KAA13487@penguin.lvcm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002151816.KAA13487@penguin.lvcm.com>; from JEDIDIAH on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:16:48AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:16:48AM -0800, JEDIDIAH wrote: > > Encryption still serves to facilitate communication. It must > do so in order to be useful. It's just a form of language > that is meant to be obscure. In this case, it is very much > like Navajo. The analogy is further strengthened here by > the fact that the particular 'encryption' employed here > was/is 'absurd' in the presence of a modern level of knowledge > and communications. The fact that encryption facilitates communication doesn't make it language. By this same reasoning, coaxial cable is a form of language, since it facilitates communication. Encryption is a tool that under certain circumstances can be used to enhance the quality of a line of communication. If it were a language in itself, then no plaintext copy would be required; the encryption itself becomes the baseline communication. That isn't the case. You still need something below the encryption level that's actually in a real language - without it, encryption is nothing but an mangling method. The fact remains that to have a language, you need a set of symbols interrelated via a commonly known (meaning more than one person knows it) grammar that in itself communicates ideas. Encryption is a language in exactly the same way that a telephone line is language - it isn't. It is a means of protecting the conveyance of language. If anything is a language here, it is the MPEG-2 standard used to format the video datastream. > Since CSS doesn't keep anyone from doing a bit level copy of the > disk, it's not really access control at all. It's sort of an odd > sort of patent on the players. Of course it's access control. It's just not copy protection. You can copy an encrypted MPEG-2 file all you want, but until you decrypt it you haven't accessed the intellectual property within it. CSS - however weak it is - is the mechanism being used to prevent that access; DeCSS is a mechanism that was manufactured and distributed to circumvent that access control. This is why we can't go into court arguing the CSS doesn't protect against copyright infringement. Of course it doesn't - that's not the point. That's not what the MPAA is suing under. They're arguing that DeCSS was created and distributed to circumvent their access control, which is exactly what it does. Any fool can see that. We need to argue that Section 12 violates - actually, eliminates - fair use. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 14:20:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA12736 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:20:46 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA12719 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:20:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 6573 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 19:24:17 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:24:17 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Justifications for the right to read Message-ID: <20000215142417.B6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> <20000215110911.B890@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000215110911.B890@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:09:11AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:09:11AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > I want to circulate ideas on establishing a basis or rational for > the right to read. Perhaps the greatest difficulty here is the > (near) absense of references to "reading" in legal discussions of > the First Amendment and copyright. Most discussions take the right > to read as an unstated axiom. Unfortunately for us, data encryption > (i.e. "access control") is most directly related to the right to > read, and not to the right to publish. This means that there are > few (or no) precedents that clearly discuss the importance of the > right to read. Question: do I have the right to hack into your computer and read your files? How about if you're running a web server, and only give me permission to access a particular part of the system, and only at certain times of the day. Should I be able to sue you because you're denying me my "right to read" your private email? If what we're talking about is non-software copyrighted media (i.e., the type of media which would be covered under the DMCA), the "right to read" already exists under a different name: "fair use". Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 14:21:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA12850 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:21:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@w129.z208177180.chi-il.dsl.cnc.net [208.177.180.129]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA12846 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:21:09 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16299 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:20:36 -0600 Message-ID: <38A9A701.39F29890@bigbrother.net> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:20:33 -0600 From: Steve Stearns X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution References: <200002151851.KAA14058@penguin.lvcm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > The free market is supposed to be somewhat Darwinian and perhaps > we have reached a point where companies will either adapt or die. > The MPAA is trying to prevent the world from changing through > abusing the law. Should the state choose to be a tool in this > process? Is it in the ultimate public interest to do so? > > Perhaps it's time for Hollywood to die. Personally, I think that what the movie studios should do is just open up the vaults and make everything available on their websites. Turn themselves into a service industry (providing storage, distribution and recommendations) instead of acting as a manufacturing industry (producing media which it then sells). Now, the precedent as set in the constitution is that copyright exists to give property rights to those who create media to give them a means to profit (creating a reason for them to produce this media in the first place). It does cost a certain amount of money to produce a movie, so somehow the industry needs to be able to turn a profit to be able to afford to make the movies in the first place. So do they have the right to profit? I would suggest that the constitution and legal precedent says, yes. Now, to turn this argument on its ear, the constituion gives copyright controllers their rights with a provision, that being fair use. The congress grants a limited monopoly in exchange for a copyright holder allowing limited fair use of the materials and eventual releasing of the information into the public domain. This brings up an important question. If a copyright holder has the ability to secure its intellectual property without the need of copyright (through controls like CSS), does the public still have a right to fair use? So one take on this might be to argue that in establishing protection under copyright law, the MPAA must provide the ability for their media to be used under the clauses of fair use. Because CSS prevents fair use of the media, then their copyright may, by extension, be void. In that case, then DeCSS is perfectly legal because the copyright is not valid. Kind of a wacky approach but possibly useful. > We used to trade bit level copies of copy protected floppies for > the ST when I was a kid. These bit level copies could then be > 'burned' onto the media of the day. The 'tech progress' argument > can go both ways. It can both futher facilitate the exchange of > decrypted movie data as well as the exchange of bitlevel copied > encrypted data, making CSS moot. Basically the argument that kept software open and copyable was that it was necessary for the legimate purpose of backing up data. This argument is harder to push for DVD's, but may still be usable. Frankly I have had a number of CD's get scratched beyond recognition and it would have been nice ot have a backup copy. ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 14:24:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14788 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:24:33 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14784 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:24:31 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04343 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:24:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:24:36 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Justifications for the right to read Message-ID: <20000215142436.P1781@nacs.net> References: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> <20000215110911.B890@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000215110911.B890@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:09:11AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > I want to circulate ideas on establishing a basis or rational for > the right to read. Perhaps the greatest difficulty here is the > (near) absense of references to "reading" in legal discussions of > the First Amendment and copyright. Most discussions take the right > to read as an unstated axiom. Unfortunately for us, data encryption > (i.e. "access control") is most directly related to the right to > read, and not to the right to publish. This means that there are > few (or no) precedents that clearly discuss the importance of the > right to read. IANAL, but: I think the issue is that DMCA is making illegal an amoral means to an either ethical or unethical end. If the law made illegal the circumvention of access control to an illegal end, I would have no problems; but it also makes illegal the circumvention of access control to legal and ethical ends. But then the law becomes pointless, other than to possibly add a second charge to a case of copyright infringement. What is legal should be legal irregardless of whether there are technological means enforcing it. What is illegal should be illegal regardless of whether there are technological means enforcing it. And would a 'right to read' apply here, since this is done with the consent of the copyright holders, which I believe, can deny someone the right to read their product/work/creation/whatever? Now look, I've joined this discussion to comment on technical things and now I'm debating law. I better shut my mouth before I look foolish in front of a bunch of lawyers. :-) I'll stay quiet except for technological issues now. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 14:30:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA16993 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:30:39 -0500 Received: from newton.pconline.com (reid@newton.pconline.com [206.145.48.1]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16985 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:30:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (reid@localhost) by newton.pconline.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18623 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:30:51 -0600 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:30:51 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Palmer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Tell the media what MPAA is really fighting for In-Reply-To: <20000215105212.J5133@linuxpower.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > What we want to do is demonize the MPAA to the point that they look > like vicious ogres, wanting nothing less than dictatorial powers over > digital media. > > God, I can't believe I just wrote that. It's true, but I still can't > believe it. No, that is not what we want to do. How can we fight against their demonization of us as defenders of piracy with any degree of credibility, when we are demonizing them as ogres? `Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury', said Michael Franti. What we want to do is undermine the MPAA's disinformation with good information. Good information is that the MPAA wants to see law enforced that we believe is un-Constitutional. -- Christopher Reid Palmer : www.innerfireworks.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 14:34:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA19329 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:34:51 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA19322 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:34:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 6588 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 19:38:17 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:38:17 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Justifications for the right to read Message-ID: <20000215143817.C6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000213224711.A2266@localhost> <20000215110911.B890@localhost> <20000215142436.P1781@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000215142436.P1781@nacs.net>; from Jason M. Felice on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 02:24:36PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 02:24:36PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > Now look, I've joined this discussion to comment on technical things and now > I'm debating law. I better shut my mouth before I look foolish in front of > a bunch of lawyers. :-) Aw, join in the fray. We've got a whole bunch of make-believe lawyers working the crowd in here - Lord knows I am. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 14:48:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA27499 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:48:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@w129.z208177180.chi-il.dsl.cnc.net [208.177.180.129]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA27496 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:48:29 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16311 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:47:56 -0600 Message-ID: <38A9AD69.DBD8F4D3@bigbrother.net> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:47:53 -0600 From: Steve Stearns X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS doesn't copy, people copy References: <20000215093401.G5133@linuxpower.org> <200002151816.KAA13487@penguin.lvcm.com> <20000215141659.A6509@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu An argument that has frequently been made by the NRA to insure that guns are available to the general populace is, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Perhaps this argument can also be used for DeCSS. There are numerous precedents of things being legal even though they could be used for illegal purposes. ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 14:56:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01927 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:56:38 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA01924 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:56:36 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA14591 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:58:18 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002151958.LAA14591@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:58:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20000215141659.A6509@linuxpower.org> from "greslin@linuxpower.org" at Feb 15, 2000 02:16:59 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:16:48AM -0800, JEDIDIAH wrote: > > > > Encryption still serves to facilitate communication. It must > > do so in order to be useful. It's just a form of language > > that is meant to be obscure. In this case, it is very much > > like Navajo. The analogy is further strengthened here by > > the fact that the particular 'encryption' employed here > > was/is 'absurd' in the presence of a modern level of knowledge > > and communications. > > The fact that encryption facilitates communication doesn't make it > language. > > By this same reasoning, coaxial cable is a form of language, since it > facilitates communication. Encryption is a tool that under certain > circumstances can be used to enhance the quality of a line of communication. > If it were a language in itself, then no plaintext copy would be required; > the encryption itself becomes the baseline communication. That isn't the > case. You still need something below the encryption level that's actually > in a real language - without it, encryption is nothing but an mangling > method. > > The fact remains that to have a language, you need a set of symbols > interrelated via a commonly known (meaning more than one person knows > it) grammar that in itself communicates ideas. Encryption is a language > in exactly the same way that a telephone line is language - it isn't. > It is a means of protecting the conveyance of language. Actually, both the Coax protocols and the telephone protocols would both be simple forms of communication as well. Niether of these are intended to obscure. They're merely intended to allow for human communication over a wire. They just happen to be a little bit more sophisticated than something like Morse Code which can be more directly interpreted by a human. > > If anything is a language here, it is the MPEG-2 standard used to format > the video datastream. > > > > Since CSS doesn't keep anyone from doing a bit level copy of the > > disk, it's not really access control at all. It's sort of an odd > > sort of patent on the players. > > Of course it's access control. It's just not copy protection. You can > copy an encrypted MPEG-2 file all you want, but until you decrypt it you > haven't accessed the intellectual property within it. CSS - however Except for one thing, there are quite a few devices that know the language. All you have to do is get the data to one of those millions of devices produced by hundreds of entities that have been let in on this little 'secret language'. > weak it is - is the mechanism being used to prevent that access; DeCSS > is a mechanism that was manufactured and distributed to circumvent that > access control. > > This is why we can't go into court arguing the CSS doesn't protect against > copyright infringement. Of course it doesn't - that's not the point. That's > not what the MPAA is suing under. They're arguing that DeCSS was created > and distributed to circumvent their access control, which is exactly what > it does. Any fool can see that. Then there are different ways to attack such forms of 'discrimination'. In the meantime, we can avoid having some New York judge or the Times fixate on piracy and what DeCSS will do in terms of economic damage to the members of the MPAA. [deletia] The fraud which is CSS as copy protection simply must be exposed. The fact that this is a decades old folly, that shold be known to anyone familiar with this industry (digital media) should also be exposed. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 15:03:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04644 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:03:22 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA04640 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:03:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 6680 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 20:06:51 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:06:51 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Tell the media what MPAA is really fighting for Message-ID: <20000215150651.D6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000215105212.J5133@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Christopher Palmer on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:30:51PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:30:51PM -0600, Christopher Palmer wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > What we want to do is demonize the MPAA to the point that they look > > like vicious ogres, wanting nothing less than dictatorial powers over > > digital media. > > > > God, I can't believe I just wrote that. It's true, but I still can't > > believe it. > > No, that is not what we want to do. How can we fight against their > demonization of us as defenders of piracy with any degree of credibility, > when we are demonizing them as ogres? `Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury', > said Michael Franti. > > What we want to do is undermine the MPAA's disinformation with good > information. Good information is that the MPAA wants to see law enforced > that we believe is un-Constitutional. A rational thinker - thank you. You're right, of course. I do think, though, that we need to realize that we're fighting two battles here - a public opinion one and one in court. So long as the general public perception of the MPAA is that they're just honest businessmen trying to protect their investments, we'll have a tougher time in court. In the future, guys, please disregard any obviously emotional rants from me like the one above. Thanks. I get worked up at times. ;) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 15:03:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04848 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:03:32 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04845 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:03:30 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA14654 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:05:13 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002152005.MAA14654@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:05:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <38A9A701.39F29890@bigbrother.net> from "Steve Stearns" at Feb 15, 2000 01:20:33 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > The free market is supposed to be somewhat Darwinian and perhaps > > we have reached a point where companies will either adapt or die. > > The MPAA is trying to prevent the world from changing through > > abusing the law. Should the state choose to be a tool in this > > process? Is it in the ultimate public interest to do so? > > > > Perhaps it's time for Hollywood to die. > > Personally, I think that what the movie studios should do is just open up the vaults > and make everything available on their websites. Turn themselves into a service > industry (providing storage, distribution and recommendations) instead of acting as a > manufacturing industry (producing media which it then sells). > > Now, the precedent as set in the constitution is that copyright exists to give > property rights to those who create media to give them a means to profit (creating a > reason for them to produce this media in the first place). It does cost a certain > amount of money to produce a movie, so somehow the industry needs to be able to turn Certainly. But the technology is changing. The costs associated with producing and distributing intellectual property is being changed dramatically. Old excuses for outdated practices are fading away. It is clear in the Salon interview that Valenti is either not aware of this or chooses to ignore it. He still thinks of the world in terms of discrete markets that can be controlled. As it gets more and more viable to distribute an entire DVD across the net, that notion of spliting up the world into artificial pieces will make less and less sense. Even much of the production cost of movies may go away as the sort of technology behind TPM makes it's way to desktop computing. > a profit to be able to afford to make the movies in the first place. So do they have > the right to profit? I would suggest that the constitution and legal precedent says, > yes. > > Now, to turn this argument on its ear, the constituion gives copyright controllers > their rights with a provision, that being fair use. The congress grants a limited > monopoly in exchange for a copyright holder allowing limited fair use of the > materials and eventual releasing of the information into the public domain. This > brings up an important question. If a copyright holder has the ability to secure its > intellectual property without the need of copyright (through controls like CSS), does > the public still have a right to fair use? > > So one take on this might be to argue that in establishing protection under copyright > law, the MPAA must provide the ability for their media to be used under the clauses > of fair use. Because CSS prevents fair use of the media, then their copyright may, > by extension, be void. In that case, then DeCSS is perfectly legal because the > copyright is not valid. Kind of a wacky approach but possibly useful. I think we have to convince people first that we're not just building piracy tools. > > > We used to trade bit level copies of copy protected floppies for > > the ST when I was a kid. These bit level copies could then be > > 'burned' onto the media of the day. The 'tech progress' argument > > can go both ways. It can both futher facilitate the exchange of > > decrypted movie data as well as the exchange of bitlevel copied > > encrypted data, making CSS moot. > > Basically the argument that kept software open and copyable was that it was necessary > for the legimate purpose of backing up data. This argument is harder to push for > DVD's, but may still be usable. Frankly I have had a number of CD's get scratched > beyond recognition and it would have been nice ot have a backup copy. I see free and open access to means of legal use to be a far more compelling argument. Quite often the 'backup' argument gets dismissed out of hand. Infact, I think that might have happened in the latest New York action. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 15:33:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA18396 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:33:56 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA18393 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:33:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 6710 invoked by uid 502); 15 Feb 2000 20:37:25 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:37:25 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Message-ID: <20000215153725.E6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000215141659.A6509@linuxpower.org> <200002151958.LAA14591@penguin.lvcm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002151958.LAA14591@penguin.lvcm.com>; from JEDIDIAH on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:58:18AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:58:18AM -0800, JEDIDIAH wrote: > > Actually, both the Coax protocols and the telephone protocols > would both be simple forms of communication as well. Niether > of these are intended to obscure. They're merely intended to > allow for human communication over a wire. They just happen > to be a little bit more sophisticated than something like > Morse Code which can be more directly interpreted by a human. You're right. The problem is, encryption is not a communication protocol. It is not a system used to express or communicate ideas. It is a method of altering an already-existing communication so that it is no longer directly interpretable. It's entire purpose is to break the communication of ideas. Encryption implies that there is already a communication expressed in language. Without that communication, there's nothing to encrypt. Now as far as telephone and coaxial protocols are concerned, while these can be looked at as forms of language I think it's highly questionable whether they can be said to be expressing ideas. If I call you on the phone, and read to you a Yeats poem, can I later argue that I used telephone protocols to express the ideas contained within the poem? Probably not, because the ideas were being conveyed in, in my case, English. The telephone protocols in no way serve as expressions of those ideas, only as means for conveying them. > > > > > If anything is a language here, it is the MPEG-2 standard used to format > > the video datastream. > > > > > > > Since CSS doesn't keep anyone from doing a bit level copy of the > > > disk, it's not really access control at all. It's sort of an odd > > > sort of patent on the players. > > > > Of course it's access control. It's just not copy protection. You can > > copy an encrypted MPEG-2 file all you want, but until you decrypt it you > > haven't accessed the intellectual property within it. CSS - however > > Except for one thing, there are quite a few devices that > know the language. All you have to do is get the data to > one of those millions of devices produced by hundreds of > entities that have been let in on this little 'secret > language'. But it's not a language. That's what I'm trying to explain here. Are you honestly trying to tell me that CSS, as an encryption system, was not intended to impair access to copyrighted work? Or that CSS *itself* conveys the ideas expressed on a DVD? If you can show that CSS itself conveys ideas, rather than mangling the product of ideas expressed in another language - such as MPEG-2 - then I'll be more than happy to buy into the "encryption is language" view. But the truth is, you can't. The reason you can't is because if you change the language by which the original idea is expressed, the encryption system doesn't care. It just mangles the data according to recipe; it doesn't reinterpret the content into "it's" language. An encryption system does not contain a symbol set or grammar; it is only a method applied to raw information, whether that information is organized or not. If encryption were language, the basic content would be expressed in CSS itself and there would be no encryption at all. If I decide to start swapping every other word in my sentences, is that technique itself a language? Or is the original plaintext - whether it be English, Spanish, Hindu - the actual language? For that matter, is "Pig Latin" a real language, defendable in court as such? > The fraud which is CSS as copy protection simply must be exposed. > The fact that this is a decades old folly, that shold be known to > anyone familiar with this industry (digital media) should also be > exposed. Yes, but not in court. That's a battle to be fought in the press. The court already knows that CSS isn't copy protection. Kaplan's not stupid. If we walk into court and scream, "CSS isn't copy protection!" Kaplan's going to say "So what?". Read the New York transcript - that's pretty much exactly what happened when the EFF argued that point. So long as we're not addressing the real issue - access control and fair use - in court, our defense has a hole in it that a Boeing 747 could fly through. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 15:58:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA28213 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:58:56 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA28210 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:58:55 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id MAA28991 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:58:46 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:58:45 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS doesn't copy, people copy Message-ID: <20000215125845.L4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000215093401.G5133@linuxpower.org> <200002151816.KAA13487@penguin.lvcm.com> <20000215141659.A6509@linuxpower.org> <38A9AD69.DBD8F4D3@bigbrother.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <38A9AD69.DBD8F4D3@bigbrother.net>; from sterno@bigbrother.net on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:47:53PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Stearns writes: > An argument that has frequently been made by the NRA to insure that guns are > available to the general populace is, "guns don't kill people, people kill > people." Perhaps this argument can also be used for DeCSS. There are numerous > precedents of things being legal even though they could be used for illegal > purposes. The individual-responsibility-for-use argument against banning something with harmful uses is a stronger variant of "Abusus non tollit usum" (Abuse does not nullify use), which was supposedly once a "legal maxim". (I don't know where to find a complete list of legal maxims; they seem to be awfully informal, and mostly used when it's convenient.) The problem with these arguments is that they are metalegal, not legal. "Guns don't kill people..." is an argument that guns _ought not_ be regulated, not that they _are not_ regulated, or that those regulations are invalid within a particular legal system. The conclusion of such a normative argument is that a legal system which prohibits guns is making an error or behaving unjustly. This may be a good source of motivation for getting people to oppose what the legal system is doing, but it's certainly not a way to get the legal system to change what it's doing, under its own rules. The argument that the DMCA (or, more narrowly, the DMCA as interpreted by Judge Kaplan and others) unjustly prohibits legitimate activities is certainly one that I would accept. We can use this argument to encourage people to oppose the DMCA or some aspect of the process which produced it or enforces it. (Which aspects people will focus on and what exactly they'll oppose depends a lot on their larger political views. For example, some people may say "Since the DMCA is unjust, we should lobby Congress to reverse it", where other people may say "The US government's willingness to adopt and enforce the DMCA is further evidence that the government is deeply corrupt (or illegitimate)".) In other words, if you go and argue that guns _ought to be_ deregulated because "guns don't kill people, etc.", a court won't care, because it will say that guns _are_, nonetheless, regulated, and the court is supposed to abide by the law. And if you go and argue that circumvention devices _ought to be_ degrulated because "DeCSS doesn't infringe a right of a copyright owner, people infringe a right of a copyright owner", and DeCSS has legitimate uses which the DMCA is wrong to prohibit indiscriminately, a court won't care, because it will say that circumvention device _are_, nonethless, banned, and the court is supposed to abide by the law. This is why I think that arguments about the inherent injustice of the DMCA, and its incompatibility with individual rights or traditional legal fair use rights, are good for motivating activists and attracting attention, but mostly useless in court. It seems to me that direct challenges to the legitimacy of the DMCA, based on the Copyright Clause and First Amendment, are ultimately necessary in order to prevail in court. I think this is especially the case since (1) DMCA is the law; (2) DeCSS seems to me to be _exactly_ the sort of thing the DMCA was written to prohibit. I recognize that defense lawyers are presently valiantly and capably using other lines of argument in the Federal cases, which is reasonable, but I think those other lines of argument (DMCA doesn't apply to DeCSS, etc.) are very likely doomed to failure. To continue the firearms analogy, how often would a court accept an argument that _your_ alleged "assault weapon" is not, in fact, an "assault weapon" within the meaning of the law? Even if courts have mostly forgotten about "Abusus non tollit usum", they have _not_ forgotten about "De minimis non curat lex" (the law is not concerned with trifles). Someone may say that I have an unrealistic formalist concept of the US judicial system, in that many judges are willing to consider subjective "balancing" arguments or the spirit of the law. That's possible; certainly Judge Kaplan, for one, has so far seemed totally uninterested in that sort of thing, where it might mean second-guessing the Congress. Judge Kaplan seemed to say, in no uncertain terms, that the law prohibits publication of this computer program; if you publish this computer program, you are breaking the law. So the law is unjust? You have a supposedly legitimate reason for breaking it? Go talk to Congress! -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 16:14:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04615 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:14:07 -0500 Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04590 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:14:06 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14428 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:14:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01986 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:10:44 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000215141659.A6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000215093401.G5133@linuxpower.org> <200002151816.KAA13487@penguin.lvcm.com> <20000215141659.A6509@linuxpower.org> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:10:40 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Collected thoughts Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu YE-TSAN KA-HA-TENI YIL-TAS BIN-KIE-JINH-JIH-DEZ-JAY YEES-GHIN | | | | | | | | | | This is Navajo code talk for: ABANDON NATIVE CODE OFFENSIVE FAILURE See Navajo Code Talkers' Dictionary http://history.navy.mil/faqs/faq61-4.htm From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 17:10:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27208 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:10:48 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA27204 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:10:47 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id OAA28326; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:09:39 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: iang@cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The right to read Date: 15 Feb 2000 22:09:38 GMT Organization: ISAAC Group, UC Berkeley Lines: 10 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88cir2$rl3$1@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: abraham.cs.berkeley.edu X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article , Steve M Bibayoff wrote: >I don't know if this applies, or matters, but lock-picking equipment is >illegal to have in your possision in California unless you are a liscenced >lock-smith. Which of course made it all the more interesting that they were being handed out at the RSA conference. :-) - Ian From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 17:24:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02252 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:24:53 -0500 Received: from mailss.aldato.com.co ([206.114.17.1]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA02248 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:24:42 -0500 Received: from [206.114.17.1] by aldato.com.co id 898b0.wrk; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:12:22 EDT Message-ID: <00da01bf7803$3e3244a0$0100a8c0@robocop> From: "Alexandre Alvarez" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] A few comments.... Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:23:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hello, I read the NY court session transcript as soon as it was published on the cryptome. I was completely shocked by how many of the participants treat this case like it belongs to the pre-internet era: 1) The judge seems to have taken personally various insults found on slashdot and other websites. It amazed me how the authenticity of such messages was completely taken for granted! I mean, how do we know it was not the MPAA, or their supporters who published (anonymously) many of the offending comments? ( If I ever get sued by anyone I'll just go to the first web site that pops up, and start anonymously offending myself, my lawyers and the judge.) 2) The judge seems to be unaware that TV/Radio/Telephone/Internet (et al.) are all converging into one single DIGITAL "cable" (yes it is happening, read the IEEE mags). So we will most likely be repeating this process when DeCSS-style protected TV is the "new" standard, and company "X" breaks the scheme to build their own TV set. 3) Someone on the /. suggested importing CDs from other "regions" and performing a class-action against the DVD manufacturers. 4) There is a "speech" version of the DeCSS on the cryptome site. There is also a link to a program that can convert the DeCSS to a play. If the judge continues to affirm that code itself is not speech next time we will hear claims like this: Pltff- "Oh, Mr. Big Judge: Joe Hacker is publishing a Play to circumvent my access control!" TCrt- "Sorry kid, but the Play is speech and speech is not code." regards, Alexandre Alvarez aalvarez@acm.org .sig: ---------------------------------------------------- MR. LEVY: I’m sorry, your Honor. I actually have a technology expert with me. Would the Court like to or would they agree to hear a very brief statement on this point from that expert? THE COURT: No. MR. LEVY: I’m sorry? THE COURT: No. Let’s go on. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 19:24:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01636 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:24:17 -0500 Received: from web503.mail.yahoo.com (web503.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.70]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA01633 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:24:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 19531 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Feb 2000 00:24:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20000216002432.19530.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web503.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:24:32 PST Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:24:32 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Roland Nagtegaal wrote: > I understand all this, even agree with you. The problem is, > computercode is much more a recipe to do or make something, > than it that is speech. > A schematic of how a lock works, of a recipe of a cake > might be (is also) a form of expression, but the functional > aspect weighs more than the free expression, I think. This is precisely the arguement that California courts have twice rejected in Bernstein v. US DOJ. In fact, my opinion of the 9th circuit's decision is that it definitively refutes this position. Here's the link, from the EFF site: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Crypto_export/Bernstein_case/Legal/19990506_circuit_decision.html Here's some choice quotes from the 9th Circuit's opinion. "The distinguishing feature of source code is that it is meant to be read and understood by humans and that it can be used to express an idea or a method. A computer, in fact, can make no direct use of source code until it has been translated ("compiled") into a 'low-level' or 'machine' language, resulting in computer-executable 'object code.' " "In light of these considerations, we conclude that encryption software, in its source code form and as employed by those in the field of cryptography, must be viewed as expressive for First Amendment purposes, and thus is entitled to the protections of the prior restraint doctrine." "In the government's view, by targeting this unique functional aspect of source code, rather than the content of the ideas that may be expressed therein, the export regulations manage to skirt entirely the concerns of the First Amendment. This argument is flawed for at least two reasons. First, it is not at all obvious that the government's view reflects a proper understanding of source code. As noted earlier, the distinguishing feature of source code is that it is meant to be read and understood by humans, and that it cannot be used to control directly the functioning of a computer. [...] Second, and more importantly, the government's argument, distilled to its essence, suggests that even one drop of "direct functionality" overwhelms any constitutional protections that expression might otherwise enjoy. This cannot be so." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 19:35:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA10488 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:35:27 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA10455 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:35:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 7531 invoked by uid 502); 16 Feb 2000 00:38:52 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:38:52 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Message-ID: <20000215193852.F6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216002432.19530.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000216002432.19530.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 04:24:32PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 04:24:32PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- Roland Nagtegaal wrote: > > I understand all this, even agree with you. The problem is, > > computercode is much more a recipe to do or make something, > > than it that is speech. > > A schematic of how a lock works, of a recipe of a cake > > might be (is also) a form of expression, but the functional > > aspect weighs more than the free expression, I think. > > This is precisely the arguement that California courts have twice > rejected in Bernstein v. US DOJ. In fact, my opinion of the 9th > circuit's decision is that it definitively refutes this position. [ quote snipped ] This is a *really* nice quote. Damn; I'm going to have to go back and actually read Bernstein. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 22:20:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA10914 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:20:22 -0500 Received: from emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (cc273095-a.hwrd1.md.home.com [24.3.46.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA10911 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:20:21 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24095 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:20:40 -0500 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.4 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20000215125845.L4856@cty-alum.org> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:20:40 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Bauer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS doesn't copy, people copy Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Change the analogy from "guns" to "baseball bats". Someone could certainly use a baseball bat to aid in the commission of a crime, but who would seriously consider placing the manfucatures or distributors of baseball bats at fault. However, we now bassically have a law banning baseball bats. On 15-Feb-2000 Seth David Schoen wrote: > Steve Stearns writes: > >> An argument that has frequently been made by the NRA to insure that guns are >> available to the general populace is, "guns don't kill people, people kill >> people." Perhaps this argument can also be used for DeCSS. There are numerous >> precedents of things being legal even though they could be used for illegal >> purposes. > > The individual-responsibility-for-use argument against banning something > with harmful uses is a stronger variant of "Abusus non tollit usum" (Abuse > does not nullify use), which was supposedly once a "legal maxim". (I > don't know where to find a complete list of legal maxims; they seem to be > awfully informal, and mostly used when it's convenient.) > > The problem with these arguments is that they are metalegal, not legal. > "Guns don't kill people..." is an argument that guns _ought not_ be > regulated, not that they _are not_ regulated, or that those regulations > are invalid within a particular legal system. > > The conclusion of such a normative argument is that a legal system which > prohibits guns is making an error or behaving unjustly. This may be a > good source of motivation for getting people to oppose what the legal > system is doing, but it's certainly not a way to get the legal system to > change what it's doing, under its own rules. > > The argument that the DMCA (or, more narrowly, the DMCA as interpreted by > Judge Kaplan and others) unjustly prohibits legitimate activities is > certainly one that I would accept. We can use this argument to encourage > people to oppose the DMCA or some aspect of the process which produced it > or enforces it. (Which aspects people will focus on and what exactly > they'll oppose depends a lot on their larger political views. For example, > some people may say "Since the DMCA is unjust, we should lobby Congress > to reverse it", where other people may say "The US government's willingness > to adopt and enforce the DMCA is further evidence that the government is > deeply corrupt (or illegitimate)".) > > In other words, if you go and argue that guns _ought to be_ deregulated > because "guns don't kill people, etc.", a court won't care, because > it will say that guns _are_, nonetheless, regulated, and the court is > supposed to abide by the law. > > And if you go and argue that circumvention devices _ought to be_ degrulated > because "DeCSS doesn't infringe a right of a copyright owner, people > infringe a right of a copyright owner", and DeCSS has legitimate uses which > the DMCA is wrong to prohibit indiscriminately, a court won't care, > because it will say that circumvention device _are_, nonethless, banned, > and the court is supposed to abide by the law. > > This is why I think that arguments about the inherent injustice of the DMCA, > and its incompatibility with individual rights or traditional legal fair > use rights, are good for motivating activists and attracting attention, but > mostly useless in court. It seems to me that direct challenges to the > legitimacy of the DMCA, based on the Copyright Clause and First Amendment, > are ultimately necessary in order to prevail in court. > > I think this is especially the case since (1) DMCA is the law; (2) DeCSS seems > to me to be _exactly_ the sort of thing the DMCA was written to prohibit. > > I recognize that defense lawyers are presently valiantly and capably using > other lines of argument in the Federal cases, which is reasonable, but I > think those other lines of argument (DMCA doesn't apply to DeCSS, etc.) are > very likely doomed to failure. To continue the firearms analogy, how often > would a court accept an argument that _your_ alleged "assault weapon" is > not, in fact, an "assault weapon" within the meaning of the law? Even if > courts have mostly forgotten about "Abusus non tollit usum", they have _not_ > forgotten about "De minimis non curat lex" (the law is not concerned with > trifles). > > Someone may say that I have an unrealistic formalist concept of the US > judicial system, in that many judges are willing to consider subjective > "balancing" arguments or the spirit of the law. That's possible; > certainly Judge Kaplan, for one, has so far seemed totally uninterested > in that sort of thing, where it might mean second-guessing the Congress. > Judge Kaplan seemed to say, in no uncertain terms, that the law prohibits > publication of this computer program; if you publish this computer program, > you are breaking the law. So the law is unjust? You have a supposedly > legitimate reason for breaking it? Go talk to Congress! > > -- > Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I > Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will > down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 15 23:36:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA22425 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:36:39 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA22422 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:36:38 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA29709; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:35:31 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: iang@cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Date: 16 Feb 2000 04:35:30 GMT Organization: ISAAC Group, UC Berkeley Lines: 15 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88d9ei$t0a$1@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000216002432.19530.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: abraham.cs.berkeley.edu X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000216002432.19530.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com>, Bryan Taylor wrote: >Second, and more importantly, the government's argument, distilled to >its essence, suggests that even one drop of "direct functionality" >overwhelms any constitutional protections that expression might >otherwise enjoy. This cannot be so." And I really loved the footnote that went with this: "If it were, we would have expected the Supreme Court to start and end its analysis of David Paul O'Brien's burning of his draft card with an inquiry into whether he was kept warm by the ensuing flames. See United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)." - Ian From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 00:20:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA12689 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:20:15 -0500 Received: from kpbgintra.kpbg.wa.gov.au ([167.30.78.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA12686 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:20:12 -0500 Received: from darrell ([10.10.1.127]) by kpbgintra.kpbg.wa.gov.au (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA4EAF for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:13:39 +0800 From: "Darrell Horrocks" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:18:57 +0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Given that the law suit is attacking the access control, can we not develop an argument defeating the section 1201(a) Quote: ``(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.--(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected [[Page 112 STAT. 2864]] under this title. <> The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter. <> The key word is effective. Is there any precedent regarding the use of that word effective. The person that we know that is involved was not an educated man, nor an adult, and yet "he" broke the encryption. I would say that this does not "effectively controls to a work protected". Any crypto people want to comment on the ease of breaking the encryption, or lawyers on any precedent of this "effective technological measure"? Or is there some other legislation I am missing? Darrell ps. This is an non-lawyer Aussie who is VERY interested in the ramafications of this case, particularly for us down under! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 02:31:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA30337 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:31:54 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA30334 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:31:53 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA30138 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:30:46 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA26531; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:29:39 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic Date: 15 Feb 2000 23:28:33 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 26 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88djj1$psn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article , Darrell Horrocks wrote: > The key word is effective. [...] > > Any crypto people want to comment on the ease of breaking the encryption, or > lawyers on any precedent of this "effective technological measure"? Or is > there some other legislation I am missing? As far as I can see, it's the lawyer people you need to ask about the meaning of the word "effective". As a security and crypto researcher, personally I'd say that that the -- under the plain meaning of the word "effective" -- the CSS is not an effective access control mechanism. Still, you should recognize that, like everything else in this world, this is not 100% cut-and-dried: some people might plausibly construe the word to come to a different conclusion. Anyway, it all centers on how "effective" is to be interpreted. If Judge Kaplan were to rule that wishful thinking ("well, we kinda hoped it would be secure") is sufficient for an access device mechanism to be considered legally "effective" for the purposes of DMCA, then comments from all the crypto people in the world probably won't make a difference. I guess this is the point where I hope the lawyers in the openlaw project can step forward and take charge. -- David From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 04:59:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA10649 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 04:59:20 -0500 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA10646 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 04:59:18 -0500 Received: from mailgate.computershare.co.uk ([212.240.55.115] helo=csukmime1.cshare.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12L1FC-000Loj-0K for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:59:38 +0000 Received: from cslnmail1.cshare.co.uk (unverified) by csukmime1.cshare.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.2) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:00:31 +0000 Received: by cslnmail1.cshare.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:00:33 -0000 Message-ID: <5B9C8593A02FD3118E8B00508B1002340F0D20@cslnmail1.cshare.co.uk> From: Philip Haynes To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tacti c Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:00:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The use of "effective" in this context is almost certainly not a quantitative definition of the efficacy of the measure. It is a qualitative term describing the purpose of the measure. That is, the effect of the measure is to control access (well or otherwise), not the measure is an effective way to control access. $0.02 Regards, Philip Haynes ********************************************** The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, use of this information (including disclosure, copying or distribution) may be unlawful therefore please inform the sender and delete the message immediately. The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily those held by Computershare Limited and Computershare Limited does not accept liability for any action taken in reliance on the contents of this message (other than where the company has a legal or regulatory obligation to do so) or for the consequences of any computer viruses which may have been transmitted by this e-mail. Computershare Limited Registered in England & Wales (No. 3015818) Registered Office:- 7th Floor, Jupiter House, Triton Court, 14 Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1 *********************************************** From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 05:30:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA14331 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:30:07 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA14327 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:30:05 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12L1iz-00071T-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:30:25 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:30:24 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tacti c In-Reply-To: <5B9C8593A02FD3118E8B00508B1002340F0D20@cslnmail1.cshare.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Philip Haynes wrote: > The use of "effective" in this context is almost certainly not a > quantitative definition of the efficacy of the measure. It is a qualitative > term describing the purpose of the measure. That is, the effect of the > measure is to control access (well or otherwise), not the measure is an > effective way to control access. $0.02 IANAL, but I think a similar analysis has to be done on the word "access". A DVD be accessed at 3 levels: a) video / audio straem b) MPEG video / AC3 audio stream c) CSS encrypted ( MPEG video / AC3 audio stream ) When purchasing a DVD the consumer has immediate access to a) and c) . Somwhere along the road access has been interpetet to mean reading b) No one in their right mind would choose to acces a movie by say viewing a hex dump of the MPEG encoded video. Clearly a) is the preferred method of accessing a work, and given that access to a) has been granted, why should b) still remain off limits ? There is also no difference between b) and c), they are just a binary encoding of a), and both require a major computational effort to transform back into a). Also b) can be derived from either a) or c) , the method of deriving b) form a) is widely known, and public. What is under attack is the method of deriving b) from c) which up ant tid now has been a trade secret. How can the transform c->b be a DMCA offence, while the transform a->b is not ? Can a laywer explain this to me ? frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. 9C6A46E606959C4B8C84 47B72836446BE34311EC PGPmail preferred There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 05:48:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA15986 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:48:35 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA15983 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:48:33 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12L20r-000258-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:48:53 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tacti c To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 16 Feb 100 11:48:53 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "Frank Andrew Stevenson" at Feb 16, 0 11:30:24 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > A DVD be accessed at 3 levels: > > a) video / audio straem > b) MPEG video / AC3 audio stream > c) CSS encrypted ( MPEG video / AC3 audio stream ) > > When purchasing a DVD the consumer has immediate access to a) and c) . One small restriction FWIW: The consumer only has access to a) if they have bought an "official" DVD Player. I don't know if this has an ipact on anythign significant, just trying to be thorough. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 05:49:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA16038 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:49:53 -0500 Received: from heron.tc.clarkson.edu (estyrs@heron.tc.clarkson.edu [128.153.24.162]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA16035 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:49:52 -0500 Received: from localhost (estyrs@localhost) by heron.tc.clarkson.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA19026 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:50:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:50:04 -0500 (EST) From: Ryan Esty To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] a question on generalization In-Reply-To: <5B9C8593A02FD3118E8B00508B1002340F0D20@cslnmail1.cshare.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I am not sure if this will work because I am not sure if you can just generalize this case to show that in some cases it does impede on customer's rights. Anyways with saying that media producers can put on any access control (not just encryption) won't that mean that the media producers can make their own target audience and not include people that they don't want. Is it legal for someone to make public media to exclude audiences so they have no legal right to that media? I am not a lawyer and it is pretty early in the morning so forget me if this doens't make sense. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 05:55:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA17447 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:55:39 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA17444 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:55:38 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12L27j-000lio-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:55:59 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] a question on generalization To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 16 Feb 100 11:55:57 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "Ryan Esty" at Feb 16, 0 05:50:04 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > I am not sure if this will work because I am not sure if you can just > generalize this case to show that in some cases it does impede on > customer's rights. Anyways with saying that media producers can put on > any access control (not just encryption) won't that mean that the media > producers can make their own target audience and not include people that > they don't want. Is it legal for someone to make public media to exclude > audiences so they have no legal right to that media? Isn't this exactly what they're doing with region codes? Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 06:29:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA20469 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 06:29:21 -0500 Received: from sol.cc.u-szeged.hu (root@sol.cc.u-szeged.hu [160.114.8.24]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA20466 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 06:29:19 -0500 Received: from petra.hos.u-szeged.hu by sol.cc.u-szeged.hu (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08955; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:29:46 +0100 (MET) Received: by petra.hos.u-szeged.hu (Linux Smail3.2.0.92 #1) id m12L2f4-000pNTC; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:30:26 +0000 () Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:30:26 +0100 From: Szilveszter Adam To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic Message-ID: <20000216123026.D11037@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <88djj1$psn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: <88djj1$psn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:28:33PM -0800, David Wagner wrote: > In article , > Darrell Horrocks wrote: > > The key word is effective. [...] > > > > Any crypto people want to comment on the ease of breaking the encryption, or > > lawyers on any precedent of this "effective technological measure"? Or is > > there some other legislation I am missing? > > As far as I can see, it's the lawyer people you need to ask about the > meaning of the word "effective". [deletia] OK, so maybe this helps a bit. Since the term "effective" came into play as a consequence of some international agreement on this subject, it is not limited to the USA. In my conutry, which is Hungary, we have rules in the appropriate law /Copyright Act/ which says (translation by me) "Measures for the purposes of Sect 1 [anti-circumvention] are to be interpreted as any device, product, part, process or method serving to prevent or stop the infringement of copyright. The measure is to be deemed effective if as a result of the measure the protected work can only be accessed by the user by means of specific actions which are authorized by the copyright owner and require a specific method [of access] or supplying of an access code." /huh. This is monstrous./ What this means is: The measure is effective if, in order to access the content, you have to supply a code (like a password) or you have to follow some specific procedure and this must be authorized by the copyright owner. So the term effective (at least here in my country) cannot be used to determine if the measure is cryptographically secure, or sufficiently secure or similar. If you think about it, it becomes clear that it would be really difficult to determine what is "safe enough" because there is no absolutely safe method and then you have the question: safe from whom? From the average consumer who doesn't have much clue about computing in general? Or the experienced crypto researcher? Or something in between? It is any method you could not use without permission from the copyright owner. I think that playing a DVD in one of the authorized players is exactly one example of a "specific method" you must follow and therefore it is to be deemed as effective according to the above law. Since the DVD CCA ensured that originally this was the only method to get to the content, I think this measure clearly would qualify here as an "effective measure" which you are not allowed to circumvent even if you can do it. /if it were impossible to circumvent there would not be much point in prohibiting it, either./ Seriously guys, the more I deal with this case, the more it becomes apparent to me that it was not the judge's decision that was bad, it is the law that is bad here. Even if we somehow manage to defeat the copyright issue, the trade secret issue still remains and is rather clear. I think we have a case of missing exceptions which should be provided for lawful use here... also issues of competition law and consumer protection should be explored... That does not mean off course that we should not construct good arguments but at least in my country the situation is becoming more bleak the more I look at it... Just my thoughts... Regards: Szilveszter ADAM (a law student and BSD buff) -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 07:41:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA25491 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:41:08 -0500 Received: from mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.10.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA25488 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:41:05 -0500 Received: from vsm83 (VSM83.fys.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.81.83]) by mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA84372 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:41:21 +0100 Message-Id: <200002161241.NAA84372@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be> From: "Eric Seynaeve" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:44:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id HAA25489 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 16 Feb 00, at 13:18, Darrell Horrocks wrote: > The key word is effective. Is there any precedent regarding the use > of that word effective. The person that we know that is involved was > not an educated man, nor an adult, and yet "he" broke the encryption. > I would say that this does not "effectively controls to a work > protected". Besides the interpretation of the word effective, there is also another consideration. In the interview of Johansson, he clearly says that he is just part of a team. Therefore, the MPAA can acutally speculate that the other people in the team could very well be educated and/or adults. They are not limited to Johansson. Just my 0.02 € Eric VSM Celestijnenlaan 200D B-3001 Belgium e-mail: Eric.Seynaeve@fys.kuleuven.ac.be 'Experiments should be repoducible -- they all should fail in the same way' Finagle's Fifth Rule From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 10:05:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA22572 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:05:18 -0500 Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA22568 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:05:17 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11706 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:05:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09232 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:02:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:02:23 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 1:18 PM +0800 2/16/2000, Darrell Horrocks wrote: ... >The key word is effective. Is there any precedent regarding the use of that >word effective. The person that we know that is involved was not an >educated man, nor an adult, and yet "he" broke the encryption. I would say >that this does not "effectively controls to a work protected". > >Any crypto people want to comment on the ease of breaking the encryption, or >lawyers on any precedent of this "effective technological measure"? Or is >there some other legislation I am missing? Here is what the law itself says. There are separate definitions for each section. : For 1201 (a): Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures ... "1201 (a) (3) As used in this subsection - (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. " For 1201 (b): Additional Violations. - (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that - (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; .... "1201 (b) (2) As used in this subsection - (A) to ''circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure'' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and (B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title. " You can find section 1201 in its entirety at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 10:29:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25643 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:29:04 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA25640 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:29:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 14746 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2000 15:24:34 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2000 15:24:34 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA15412; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:29:19 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:29:19 -0800 Message-Id: <200002161529.HAA15412@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Eric Seynaeve wrote: >On 16 Feb 00, at 13:18, Darrell Horrocks wrote: > > >Besides the interpretation of the word effective, there is also another >consideration. In the interview of Johansson, he clearly says that he is just >part of a team. Therefore, the MPAA can acutally speculate that the other >people in the team could very well be educated and/or adults. They are not >limited to Johansson. > >Just my 0.02 ? > There's a problem: The courts, I think, recognize that an encryption arms race is costly, especially when you also have to change the hardware design constantly. So what happened is that DMCA was created so that if the seller demonstrates some intent to encrypt then regardless of effectiveness it's illegal to break it. However DMCA is kinda vague about fair use which could be a good weapon against this nonsense. Remember, Kaplan's no idiot. When the EFF said you don't need to decrypt to copy, he said, "So what?". He knows what's up. He also has to take the laws into account. But for the time being focus on circumvention in the court, and tell the media what's really going on is not a copyright infringement case but a circumvention case. >Eric > >VSM >Celestijnenlaan 200D >B-3001 Belgium >e-mail: Eric.Seynaeve@fys.kuleuven.ac.be > >'Experiments should be repoducible -- they all should fail in the same way' >Finagle's Fifth Rule Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 10:32:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26233 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:32:01 -0500 Received: from rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26230 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:32:00 -0500 Received: from bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.226]) by rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17562 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:32:17 +0100 (MET) Received: (from roland@localhost) by bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04679 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:32:17 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:32:17 +0100 From: Roland Nagtegaal To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution Message-ID: <20000216163217.A4094@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net>; from Steve Stearns on Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:36:37PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > That is to say, > can you decode a DVD and put it on the Internet for all to see without using > DeCSS? Also, does it make decoding the DVD SIGNIFICANTLY easier than was > possible before its existence? The answer is yes, of course this is possible. Use a real-time framegrabber. One setup: run windows inside linux, using vmWare for instance, and play a movie. Use a framegrabber/audiograbber and record your movie, directly from the screen. You are going to need about 80GB to do this, but o.k. clearly this can be done. Then you can make mpeg2 out of it, or whatever you want, including putting that unencrypted mpeg2 on a DVD with a normal DVD burner, and I think this will play in a normal player. You don't need DeCSS to do all this at all, you just need a fast computer with lots of RAM and lots of diskspace. And a DVD burner. Such a computer can be bought for under $3000,- I think. I don't know how much a DVD burner costs. Let's say, if you can afford a car, you can afford this. Now is this correct or not? If it is correct, and this can be demonstrated, the MPAA has to go an prohibit framegrabbers as well. > If it does make it possible or significantly easier to decode a DVD and > distribute it over the Internet, then that could be a big hole in any technology > arguments that are made against the MPAA. The issue of duplicaitng DVD's is > important, but I think the MPAA's greatest fear is to see the DVD version of > Napster coming out a few years down the road. > > ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 10:38:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26611 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:38:42 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA26608 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:38:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 15436 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2000 15:34:12 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2000 15:34:12 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA16283; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:38:58 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:38:58 -0800 Message-Id: <200002161538.HAA16283@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hmm, ok. So we can argue effectiveness... good. So A --> Don't crack the system and B --> Don't give it to nobody? Rares Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: >At 1:18 PM +0800 2/16/2000, Darrell Horrocks wrote: >... > >>The key word is effective. Is there any precedent regarding the use of that >>word effective. The person that we know that is involved was not an >>educated man, nor an adult, and yet "he" broke the encryption. I would say >>that this does not "effectively controls to a work protected". >> >>Any crypto people want to comment on the ease of breaking the encryption, or >>lawyers on any precedent of this "effective technological measure"? Or is >>there some other legislation I am missing? > > >Here is what the law itself says. There are separate definitions for >each section. : > >For 1201 (a): Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures >... >"1201 (a) (3) As used in this subsection - > (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright > owner; and > (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a > work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, > requires the application of information, or a process or a > treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain > access to the work. " > > >For 1201 (b): Additional Violations. - (1) No person shall >manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or > otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, >component, or part thereof, that - > (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of > circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that > effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this > title in a work or a portion thereof; >.... > >"1201 (b) (2) As used in this subsection - > (A) to ''circumvent protection afforded by a technological > measure'' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or > otherwise impairing a technological measure; and > (B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a > copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the > ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or > otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner > under this title. " > >You can find section 1201 in its entirety at >http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html > > >Arnold Reinhold ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 10:47:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA27889 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:47:17 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA27886 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:47:16 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 59B4376F2; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:48:02 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:40:21 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00021609480200.05992@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu IANAL, but I think I see one possible weakness in this law: On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, you wrote: > At 1:18 PM +0800 2/16/2000, Darrell Horrocks wrote: < snip > > (B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a > copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the > ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or > otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner > under this title. " My question is, does a copyright owner have the right to control access to a published work? On what precident would such a right be granted? The MPAA would like the court to interpret a movie as a performance, for which they *can* control access, but if it is considered published material (like a book) then they should not have the right to control access to a movie they sell after it is purchased on DVD. > You can find section 1201 in its entirety at > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html When I have time, I should really read this. > Arnold Reinhold Steven Barker -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu laser, n.: Failed death ray. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 10:48:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA28032 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:48:45 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA28029 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:48:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 16056 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2000 15:44:14 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2000 15:44:14 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA16998; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:49:00 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:49:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200002161549.HAA16998@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] a question on generalization Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: >> >> I am not sure if this will work because I am not sure if you can just >> generalize this case to show that in some cases it does impede on >> customer's rights. Anyways with saying that media producers can put on >> any access control (not just encryption) won't that mean that the media >> producers can make their own target audience and not include people that >> they don't want. Is it legal for someone to make public media to exclude >> audiences so they have no legal right to that media? > >Isn't this exactly what they're doing with region codes? Expect this from THEY: Region codes allow protection against countries where scalping is very common because of reduced revenues. Region codes allow producers to fit the whole nine yards (hype, more hype, extreme hype, then release) into their schedules. This is actually reasonable in some markets. In the US the competition is in the Street Fighter type game market. You have to schedule your content around that. In Japan it's the Role Playing Games. Incidentally orientals seem to be less worried about people writing their own stories using the copyrighted characters. Is that a marketing strategy? Hmmm.... Finally region codes allow different rated cuts to go out. In the East they're not as uptight about certain types of content as we in the West are. >Sham Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 11:10:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00491 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:10:35 -0500 Received: from mailgate.city.ac.uk (mailgate.city.ac.uk [138.40.12.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00463 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:10:31 -0500 Received: from [138.40.12.12] (helo=mailswitch) by mailgate.city.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #4) id 12L70i-0000qE-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:09:04 +0000 Received: from [138.40.51.100] (helo=howard) by mailswitch with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 12L71l-0003Kj-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:10:09 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> From: "Howard Richardson" To: References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> <20000216163217.A4094@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:11:32 -0000 Organization: City University MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > That is to say, : > can you decode a DVD and put it on the Internet for all to see without using : > DeCSS? Also, does it make decoding the DVD SIGNIFICANTLY easier than was : > possible before its existence? : : The answer is yes, of course this is possible. : Use a real-time framegrabber. : Now is this correct or not? : If it is correct, and this can be demonstrated, the MPAA has to go an prohibit : framegrabbers as well. : It's not worth their while. They don't have to chase up every illegal way to pirate films, just the most obvious ones. There's a better way than your framegrabber thing anyway. Win 98 uses Direct Show to show DVDs. There are programs which will intercept DirectShow output and stream them to disk as mpeg data. No need for DeCSS at all... Howard Richardson. City University. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 11:16:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01462 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:16:16 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA01426 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:16:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 18172 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2000 16:11:43 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2000 16:11:43 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA19753; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:16:28 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:16:28 -0800 Message-Id: <200002161616.IAA19753@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Tell the media what MPAA is really fighting for Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >In the future, guys, please disregard any obviously emotional rants from >me like the one above. Thanks. I get worked up at times. ;) > Speaking as frequent slashdot flamer, I shall put myself on notice. >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 11:19:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02646 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:19:13 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02643 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:19:11 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12L7AZ-000HMW-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:19:15 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 16 Feb 100 17:19:13 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> from "Howard Richardson" at Feb 16, 0 04:11:32 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > There's a better way than your framegrabber thing anyway. Win 98 uses > Direct Show to show DVDs. There are programs which will intercept > DirectShow output and stream them to disk as mpeg data. No need for DeCSS > at all... And this is almost as convenient as DeCSS and unlike DeCSS has *no legitimate use* other than making copies, at least that I can think of. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 11:25:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA05757 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:25:53 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA05751 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:25:46 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12L7HD-000ENS-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:26:07 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Tell the media what MPAA is really fighting for To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 16 Feb 100 17:26:04 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200002161616.IAA19753@ns1.filetron.com> from "Rares Marian" at Feb 16, 0 08:16:28 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >In the future, guys, please disregard any obviously emotional rants from > >me like the one above. Thanks. I get worked up at times. ;) > > Speaking as frequent slashdot flamer, I shall put myself on notice. Personally I thought in this case the response was constructive and useful, regardless of what prompted it, then again I do somewhat share greslin's sentiments. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 11:28:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06076 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:28:05 -0500 Received: from mailgate.city.ac.uk (mailgate.city.ac.uk [138.40.12.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06072 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:28:03 -0500 Received: from [138.40.12.12] (helo=mailswitch) by mailgate.city.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #4) id 12L7IZ-0001Iy-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:27:31 +0000 Received: from [138.40.51.100] (helo=howard) by mailswitch with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 12L7Jc-0003tg-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:28:36 +0000 Message-ID: <000901bf789b$11a5b640$6433288a@city.ac.uk> From: "Howard Richardson" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:29:59 -0000 Organization: City University MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu : > There's a better way than your framegrabber thing anyway. Win 98 uses : > Direct Show to show DVDs. There are programs which will intercept : > DirectShow output and stream them to disk as mpeg data. No need for DeCSS : > at all... : : And this is almost as convenient as DeCSS and unlike DeCSS has : *no legitimate use* other than making copies, at least that I can think of. : Yes, it's telling that they haven't chased up the guys who wrote these utilities about a year ago. It shows that CSS is really about access control not minute-scale broadband piracy. Arguing that in court won't help you though. It's quite up to them who they want to prosecute and who not. You can't tarnish their reputation by challenging them on why they *didn't* do something. The judge will just say "so what?" I suspect also the Judge would see less wrong with this because the stream will have already passed through a registered player. He seemed quite hung up on the fact that no linux player could ever be legal because they've never applied for a CSS key. The idea that the key itself is objectionable didn't occur to him. Howard Richardson. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 11:35:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07564 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:35:48 -0500 Received: from mailgate.city.ac.uk (mailgate.city.ac.uk [138.40.12.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07560 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:35:46 -0500 Received: from [138.40.12.12] (helo=mailswitch) by mailgate.city.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #4) id 12L7Q3-0001RH-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:35:15 +0000 Received: from [138.40.51.100] (helo=howard) by mailswitch with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 12L7R6-00048s-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:36:20 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01bf789c$263063c0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> From: "Howard Richardson" To: References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> <20000216163217.A4094@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Off-topic: Open Law discussions Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:37:42 -0000 Organization: City University MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Does anyone else on this list share my opinion that a mailing list isn't the best way to organise our discussion? Threads come and go and it's hard to track what is good and what is not. People tend to just run with the current thread of thinking. We need to have something like a central web page where people can submit suggestions for approaches to each of the issues and then each of these suggestions can have it's own discussion thread and a moderating voting system, where people vote up or down the suggestions that are the best. Maybe lawyers could have more moderation points than "casuals"? Once a suggestion has reached a certain score it can be deemed "correct" and then should be moved to a list of agreed points where it can stay, and discussion can then focus on the newer points. The agreed points could maybe be revised monthly in light of new discussions. Does this sound like a better model to you than ad-hoc mailing lists? Howard Richardson, City University. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 11:44:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09310 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:44:03 -0500 Received: from rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA09291 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:44:01 -0500 Received: from bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.226]) by rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19873 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:44:22 +0100 (MET) Received: (from roland@localhost) by bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04894 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:44:22 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:44:22 +0100 From: Roland Nagtegaal To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution Message-ID: <20000216174422.A4882@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> <20000216163217.A4094@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk>; from Howard Richardson on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:11:32PM -0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:11:32PM -0000, Howard Richardson wrote: > > There's a better way than your framegrabber thing anyway. Win 98 uses > Direct Show to show DVDs. There are programs which will intercept > DirectShow output and stream them to disk as mpeg data. No need for DeCSS > at all... > > Howard Richardson. > City University. > Hmm. Ok, I don't use Windows at all, frankly, so I wouldn't know that. But there you have it: using plain Win 98 people can copy DVD without DeCSS. Why not demonstrate this in court and get the copyright-protection argument against DeCSS out of the way? I mean .. no judge in his right mind could, after demonstrating this, still believe that DeCSS makes copying harder, right? If it is not being used at all? Then you could focus on the access-control side of the issue. Roland Nagtegaal From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 11:44:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09619 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:44:58 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA09615 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:44:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 19944 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Feb 2000 16:45:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20000216164508.19943.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:45:08 PST Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:45:08 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tacti c To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > A DVD be accessed at 3 levels: > > a) video / audio straem > b) MPEG video / AC3 audio stream > c) CSS encrypted ( MPEG video / AC3 audio stream ) > > [...] How can the transform c->b be a DMCA offence, while the > transform a->b is > not ? Actually, you hit on something that really bugs me about this whole thing. The definitions at play in the DMCA from 1201(a)(3)(A) state: "to ‘circumvent a technological measure’ means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work". What exactly does this mean? If this is going to be used in the law, especially one that will be used to justify prior restraints of speach, it must avoid the "void-for-vagueness" test, which says you must be able to precisely know what speach is allowed and what is not. I don't think there is a mathematical definition of encryption. There is an intuitive one: "a function whose inverse is 'hard' to calculate", but I don't know of any way to really make this precise. Certainly algorithm complexity is an active field of research, but I don't know of any definition of 'hard' that has any usefulness today for doing proofs. What is even more annoying is that the whole concept of the DMCA is to give a cause of action when people defeat an encryption system. OK, so if it has been defeated, then it probably didn't meet any reasonable defintion of 'hard' anyway. Thus the DMCA protects -- WHAT !? Invertible functions that were once thought to be 'hard' to calculate, even if this can't be made precise and wasn't correct anyway. The DMCA makes it illegal to point out that the emporer has no clothes. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 12:05:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA15669 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:05:46 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15666 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:05:45 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112] (may be forged)) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA15655 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:06:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000216115038.00aea420@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:06:01 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Off-topic: Open Law discussions In-Reply-To: <001a01bf789c$263063c0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> <20000216163217.A4094@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 04:37 PM 2/16/00 +0000, H.Richardson@city.ac.uk wrote: >Does anyone else on this list share my opinion that a mailing list isn't >the best way to organise our discussion? Yes, and we've been considering what other forums would facilitate the discussion, such as web-based boards or the slashcode, CVS / document revision and annotation. >Threads come and go and it's hard to track what is good and what is not. >People tend to just run with the current thread of thinking. The mailing list seems to be a good incubator -- because it's push rather than pull, it generates a lot of discussion. The next step seems to be to move threads from the list onto a web board (or another more "fixed" form) where they can be refined. In this way, we will be building a store of data and basic points, almost FAQ-style, and can narrow the set of open questions. >We need to have something like a central web page where people can submit >suggestions for approaches to each of the issues and then each of these >suggestions can have it's own discussion thread and a moderating voting >system, where people vote up or down the suggestions that are the best. >Maybe lawyers could have more moderation points than "casuals"? Thoughts from the non-lawyers on whether the slashcode or another forum would work well for this? >Once a suggestion has reached a certain score it can be deemed "correct" >and then should be moved to a list of agreed points where it can stay, and >discussion can then focus on the newer points. The agreed points could >maybe be revised monthly in light of new discussions. These sound like great suggestions. I worry about whether people will visit a website frequently enough to keep discussions moving. I find it hard to gauge how much traffic it takes to sustain a discussion website. >Does this sound like a better model to you than ad-hoc mailing lists? > >Howard Richardson, >City University. --Wendy wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 12:12:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18773 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:12:17 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA18770 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:12:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 22464 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2000 17:07:47 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2000 17:07:47 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA25481; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:12:32 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:12:32 -0800 Message-Id: <200002161712.JAA25481@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Off-topic: Open Law discussions Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Normally I'd agree however what you're saying isn't happening not yet anyway. The volume is huge, as big as the Linux kernel mailing list(that's email volume no megabytes, lk is a hundred times bigger). From what I've seen people do post to many threads at once. And guess what it's already covered. From the beginning, we've had a blackboard type space on the net. When it's time the online discussion will go into a freeze of sorts. Arguments will need to be cleaned up. That will still happen on the list. Once clean, the clean hierarchy of arguments go on the web site for a final review. The openlaw.org people covered almost everything. Howard Richardson wrote: >Does anyone else on this list share my opinion that a mailing list isn't >the best way to organise our discussion? >Threads come and go and it's hard to track what is good and what is not. >People tend to just run with the current thread of thinking. > >We need to have something like a central web page where people can submit >suggestions for approaches to each of the issues and then each of these >suggestions can have it's own discussion thread and a moderating voting >system, where people vote up or down the suggestions that are the best. >Maybe lawyers could have more moderation points than "casuals"? It would get bogged down just like the list. It would be no different. As for moderation points. Those work well for a relatively unfocused beast like slashdot. But here it's up to the lawyers to take it and build a case. There's really no need for moderation points. Scoring isn't what we need. We need a review/digest/my collected thoughts series comming up in a little bit. We just got the dvd-announce list. We'll see more posts on that. If we're spammed it gets thrown out. This is a very narrow forum. >Once a suggestion has reached a certain score it can be deemed "correct" >and then should be moved to a list of agreed points where it can stay, and >discussion can then focus on the newer points. The agreed points could >maybe be revised monthly in light of new discussions. > >Does this sound like a better model to you than ad-hoc mailing lists? It looks good. The problem is the discussion here isn't just let's vote on x, y, and z. Most of the time it's "Yeah great argument... but the MPAA isn't arguing in the context of copyright infringement. If you noticed the copyright infringement posts slowed down as soon as that came in. Moderation is for slashdot where there isn't any clear right answer until after a few hundred posts. Here there are only two answers. The elusive right answer, and the wrong one. It's more about distributed strategy than democracy. We've already covered many issues and I don't believe we're above 500 posts. Slashdot barely covers three issues in a total of 500 posts. What I would argue as a good system though would be to beable to view a whole thread in multiple sections at once. But I think we're handling things quite well. It's just huge (thankfully). >Howard Richardson, >City University. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 12:18:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA20024 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:18:26 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA20021 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:18:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 22918 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2000 17:13:56 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2000 17:13:56 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA26030; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:18:41 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:18:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200002161718.JAA26030@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Howard Richardson wrote: > > >: > There's a better way than your framegrabber thing anyway. Win 98 uses >: > Direct Show to show DVDs. There are programs which will intercept >: > DirectShow output and stream them to disk as mpeg data. No need for >DeCSS >: > at all... >: >: And this is almost as convenient as DeCSS and unlike DeCSS has >: *no legitimate use* other than making copies, at least that I can think >of. >: > >Yes, it's telling that they haven't chased up the guys who wrote these >utilities about a year ago. It shows that CSS is really about access >control not minute-scale broadband piracy. Arguing that in court won't >help you though. It's quite up to them who they want to prosecute and who >not. You can't tarnish their reputation by challenging them on why they >*didn't* do something. The judge will just say "so what?" There's a diff between organized legal oiperations and discriminatory legal operations. We could get that in. Remember though it isn't about copyright infringement, but circumvention. >I suspect also the Judge would see less wrong with this because the stream >will have already passed through a registered player. He seemed quite hung >up on the fact that no linux player could ever be legal because they've >never applied for a CSS key. The idea that the key itself is objectionable >didn't occur to him. > >Howard Richardson. > Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 12:24:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA22373 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:24:53 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA22370 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:24:51 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (IDENT:jedi@dementia [10.2.20.11]) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA18673 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:26:36 -0800 Message-ID: <38AADCA6.8CCD762C@penguin.lvcm.com> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:21:42 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.3.42 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tacti c References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: > > A DVD be accessed at 3 levels: > > > > a) video / audio straem > > b) MPEG video / AC3 audio stream > > c) CSS encrypted ( MPEG video / AC3 audio stream ) > > > > When purchasing a DVD the consumer has immediate access to a) and c) . > > One small restriction FWIW: YMMV. Sometimes the disk is not CSS encrypted. The criterion collection version of Robocop, for example. > > > The consumer only has access to a) if they have bought an "official" DVD > Player. I don't know if this has an ipact on anythign significant, just > trying to be thorough. > > Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 12:30:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA23699 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:30:12 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23696 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:30:10 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (IDENT:jedi@dementia [10.2.20.11]) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA18680 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:31:55 -0800 Message-ID: <38AADDE5.9C223F8B@penguin.lvcm.com> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:27:01 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.3.42 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts References: <38A551A4.3F2BC076@city.ac.uk> <20000214132514.A32618@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <38A8396B.CC66D374@bigbrother.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Stearns wrote: > > - Show that the movie can be copied bit for bit from DVD-rom onto DVD-writable > > without using DeCSS, giving an encrypted movie on a disc. > > Show that the movie can be played on a regular DVD player. > > Again, no DeCSS or Linux used here. > > If my understanding of the technology is accurate this will not work. Blank DVD > media have the section of the disk that contains the decryption keys pre-burned. > Thus, making a bit for bit copy would still not make a usable copy. Now, what you > could do is make a bit for bit copy of a DVD, and then show that it did not work. > Then take DeCSS, decrypt everything, burn it to a DVD, and deomnstrate that it also > does not provide the ability to make a copy. Actually, this problem may only be restricted to console DVD players. It should be quite feasable to make a DVD image spoofing system for PC's such that the OS would consider a 'mounted' DVD image to be a real DVD drive and treat it and the media in it as such. Thus, someone could acquire a bulk DVD image much like one might do with a bulk CDROM image and then have a sanctioned player operate on the 'virtual dvdrom' drive. The virtual DVDrom drive imagefile might even be a file sitting on a writable DVD disc. [deletia] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 12:31:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA24299 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:31:08 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA24296 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:31:08 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112] (may be forged)) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA18687 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:31:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000216120714.00ae9af0@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:31:24 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic In-Reply-To: <"v04210101b4d067e7006a(a)(091)24.218.56.92(093)*"@MHS> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 10:02 AM 2/16/00 -0500, reinhold@world.std.com wrote: >At 1:18 PM +0800 2/16/2000, Darrell Horrocks wrote: >... > >>The key word is effective. Is there any precedent regarding the use of that >>word effective. The person that we know that is involved was not an >>educated man, nor an adult, and yet "he" broke the encryption. I would say >>that this does not "effectively controls to a work protected". >> >>Any crypto people want to comment on the ease of breaking the encryption, or >>lawyers on any precedent of this "effective technological measure"? Or is >>there some other legislation I am missing? As Arnold points out, the first place to look is the text of the DMCA -- where the terms are clear or clearly defined, courts don't look beyond the "plain language" of the statute. Unfortunately, the DMCA --1201 (a)(3)(B) -- makes pretty clear that "effective" just means "with the effect of." It doesn't have to be a strong cryptographic measure, just a secret handshake that you're supposed to get from the copyright owner. The next step is the legislative history. It's sometimes possible to narrow a statute's interpretation with the Congressional intent or factfindings. If it were clear that Congress didn't mean to cover a particular case, or meant to create a broader fair use exception than has been interpreted, we might be able to argue for an exception on that basis. Another possibility in legislative history would be that the law goes beyond the Congressional powers (such as because it's based in the Copyright Clause but doesn't serve the Clause's purpose), or that the factual basis Congress found doesn't support the law it enacted. The DMCA legislative history is all online at , from the Cryptome collection. (I haven't yet had a chance to read the whole 9 megs of it.) --Wendy >Here is what the law itself says. There are separate definitions for each >section. : > >For 1201 (a): Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures >... >"1201 (a) (3) As used in this subsection - >[...] > (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a > work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, > requires the application of information, or a process or a > treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain > access to the work. " > >[...] (b)(2)(B) > (B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a > copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the > ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or > otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner > under this title. " wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 12:31:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA24384 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:31:52 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA24380 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:31:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 20577 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Feb 2000 17:30:10 -0000 Message-ID: <20000216173010.20576.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:30:10 PST Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:30:10 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Damages To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Rares Marian wrote: > Remember, Kaplan's no idiot. When the EFF said you don't need to > decrypt to copy, he said, "So what?". He knows what's up. He also > has to take the laws into account. Well, he actually went back and forth in a painful hazy confusion. When the impact of the DVD crack was assessed, he clearly bought the MPAA's "Oh my God they'll be emailing each other perfect copies of the movies next week" fears. Kaplan clearly had a sense of urgency because he perceived DeCSS was a major damage to the artists that make movies. It's not if you are savy to "decryption isn't copying" arguement. It's good that he started to get it. We've just got to work into his head that several things occur when you realize that decryption isn't copying that should radically alter the view of this case. 1) You realize that the damages claimed are false. Instead of being a mass rip off of MPAA property, the result is in fact very desirable for artists (although maybe not the DVD CCA). Artists get an entire new market for DVD sales. 2) You undercut the constitutional authority in the copyright power that justifies the DMCA.Kaplan believes (correctly) that protecting copyrighted property is a compelling interest that can justify restraint of speach. This logic doesn't justify prior restrain when you take it clearly outside the copyright infringement arena. 3) You go a long way towards proving your case for legitimate reverse engineering under 1201(f). DeCSS is an intermediate step in a reasonable undertaking, a reverse engineered DVD playback tool for Linux. 4) You can make a counter claim that DeCSS is part of a fight against anti-competive "tying" of content to players and price-fixing based on region codes. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 12:36:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA26595 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:36:46 -0500 Received: from rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26591 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:36:45 -0500 Received: from bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.226]) by rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20362 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:37:06 +0100 (MET) Received: (from roland@localhost) by bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04982 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:37:06 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:37:05 +0100 From: Roland Nagtegaal To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution Message-ID: <20000216183705.A4928@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> <20000216163217.A4094@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk>; from Howard Richardson on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:11:32PM -0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:11:32PM -0000, Howard Richardson wrote: > It's not worth their while. They don't have to chase up every illegal way > to pirate films, just the most obvious ones. > > There's a better way than your framegrabber thing anyway. Win 98 uses > Direct Show to show DVDs. There are programs which will intercept > DirectShow output and stream them to disk as mpeg data. No need for DeCSS > at all... I think a framegrabber could not possibly be illegal, if you need it to be able to record a television show in your computer. Or to make screenshots for demonstration purposes. Any X-windows program can read the entire screen contents, if it runs in the same X-server, for instance. Those Win 98 programs you mentioned sound like hacker tools, made by people in the 'warez' scene. It sounds like those could almost only be used for illegal purposes. I think a demonstration of copying without DeCSS is more convincing when done with completely 'legal' programs, like you have under X window system, than with another 'hacker tool'. Anyway, I think that you and everyone here agrees that a demonstration of copying-without-DeCSS needs to be done. And the simplest method, with the most ubiquitous means to do it would be best. (so maybe not on Linux) The strategy I am suggesting is: * first: prove that DeCSS is not needed for both professional and amateur piracy, * second: make a strong case for needing DeCSS to exercise your fair use right: to be able to make Open Source DVD playing applications, in order to view your legally bought DVDs, * third: if you can prove that you have the right to view a legally bought DVD anywhere on the Earth, not just in the region it is coded for, you can argue that breaking the encryption is needed to exercize that right. It doesn't say anywhere on a DVD that you're not _allowed_ to view it outside a region, right? Well, I'm obviously not a lawyer, my english is not native, and I'm tired, but how could this case be lost if you prove those 3 points ? Also, I think that these points can be most easily defended in the media, and communicated to the masses, especially the third. Roland Nagtegaal Leiden University From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 12:41:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28339 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:41:16 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28335 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:41:14 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16146 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:46:24 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:46:24 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution Message-ID: <20000216094624.A16127@duskglow.com> References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> <20000216163217.A4094@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> <20000216183705.A4928@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000216183705.A4928@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL>; from roland@lorentz.leidenuniv.nl on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 06:37:05PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 06:37:05PM +0100, Roland Nagtegaal wrote: > > Well, I'm obviously not a lawyer, my english is not native, and I'm > tired, but how could this case be lost if you prove those 3 points ? > Because the DMCA is an enacted law that basically shreds all of those points into little tiny pieces. I agree with you, but I'm realizing more and more that it's the LAW that's bad, and if the law is interpreted strictly, going unchallenged, then we're screwed. I think the law itself needs to be directly challenged as unconstitutional. But, then again, IANAL. --Russell > Also, I think that these points can be most easily defended in the > media, and communicated to the masses, especially the third. > > > Roland Nagtegaal > Leiden University -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 12:52:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA30615 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:52:45 -0500 Received: from mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.10.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA30586 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:52:43 -0500 Received: from vsm83 (VSM83.fys.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.81.83]) by mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id SAA68506 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:53:04 +0100 Message-Id: <200002161753.SAA68506@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be> From: "Eric Seynaeve" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:56:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tacti c In-reply-to: <20000216164508.19943.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 16 Feb 00, at 8:45, Bryan Taylor wrote: > I don't think there is a mathematical definition of encryption. There > is an intuitive one: "a function whose inverse is 'hard' to > calculate", but I don't know of any way to really make this precise. > Certainly algorithm complexity is an active field of research, but I > don't know of any definition of 'hard' that has any usefulness today > for doing proofs. Hmmm, if you take that definition, then MPEG2 or LZW is an encryption technique as well. OK, they are actually compression techniques but the inverse is also hard to calculate. These algorithms are public, but so it DES. I think the main point here is that the algorithm was secret and not that it was an encryption algorithm. That, IMHO, is what DMCA wants to protect. But, as has been indicated before, that shouldn't take away our right of fair use (backup copy eg.). > What is even more annoying is that the whole concept of the DMCA is to > give a cause of action when people defeat an encryption system. OK, so > if it has been defeated, then it probably didn't meet any reasonable > defintion of 'hard' anyway. Thus the DMCA protects -- WHAT !? > Invertible functions that were once thought to be 'hard' to calculate, > even if this can't be made precise and wasn't correct anyway. > > The DMCA makes it illegal to point out that the emporer has no > clothes. __________________________________________________ Do You > Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com VSM Celestijnenlaan 200D B-3001 Belgium e-mail: Eric.Seynaeve@fys.kuleuven.ac.be 'Experiments should be repoducible -- they all should fail in the same way' Finagle's Fifth Rule From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 13:06:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA04123 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:06:31 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA04120 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:06:29 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07719 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:06:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:06:31 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Off-topic: Open Law discussions Message-ID: <20000216130631.G4920@nacs.net> References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> <20000216163217.A4094@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> <001a01bf789c$263063c0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <001a01bf789c$263063c0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:37:42PM -0000, Howard Richardson wrote: > Does anyone else on this list share my opinion that a mailing list isn't > the best way to organise our discussion? > Threads come and go and it's hard to track what is good and what is not. > People tend to just run with the current thread of thinking. I think the threads are fine, but we need a little more direction such as some sort of project chart where discussion and/or research is needed with items such as "We need to prove XXX, how do we do it?" That doesn't lend itself well to a mailing list, but would do excellently with a version of the Slash code. The presenting lawyers could post "articles" which are points of the case or milestones, collect and distill infoarmation from the discussion under it. One note though, I would disallow anonymous posting. Good for slashdot, bad for law. Please note, I am here to discuss technological aspects of the case, so having things broken down to that degree is to my tastes, but may not be to yours. It might be detremental to the building of a cohesive argument... who knows? > > We need to have something like a central web page where people can submit > suggestions for approaches to each of the issues and then each of these > suggestions can have it's own discussion thread and a moderating voting > system, where people vote up or down the suggestions that are the best. > Maybe lawyers could have more moderation points than "casuals"? How do you determine who is a lawyer? I don't think it's really necessary though, there is a lawyer or set of lawyers who actually present the case. These people would play the role of Rob on SlashDot. They should only be interested in opinions, research, and well-formed arguments. "Most popular" argument and "most feasible" are theoretically orthogonal. > > Once a suggestion has reached a certain score it can be deemed "correct" > and then should be moved to a list of agreed points where it can stay, and > discussion can then focus on the newer points. The agreed points could > maybe be revised monthly in light of new discussions. I don't think reliance on a rating system would serve the purpose of the discussion. It would be nice to eliminate flames and off-topic discussions (such as this one :), but the signal-to-noise ratio here is remarkably good. (fingers crossed) Again, in this case it's up to the defense lawyers to actually decide whether arguments and ideas presented here are useful and how, and I think they should be the only form of moderation. And I don't think they need any moderation controls other than to be able to focus people on aspects which need some brainwork but are 'not sexy', which is the same problem encountered when moderating Open Source software projects. > > Does this sound like a better model to you than ad-hoc mailing lists? I like the idea of an earlier version of Slash (without all the silly and unnecessary features). I also like the idea of being able to discuss via email, as you don't have to worry about missing any of the comments. Maybe there's some middle ground. Had I the time, I would volunteer to do maintenance work for such a thing on behalf of the Cleveland Linux User's Group. > > Howard Richardson, > City University. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 13:08:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA05114 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:08:44 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA05111 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:08:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 26556 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2000 18:04:14 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2000 18:04:14 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA30916; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:09:00 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:09:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200002161809.KAA30916@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My thoughts Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 04:24:32PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >> --- Roland Nagtegaal wrote: >> > I understand all this, even agree with you. The problem is, >> > computercode is much more a recipe to do or make something, >> > than it that is speech. >> > A schematic of how a lock works, of a recipe of a cake >> > might be (is also) a form of expression, but the functional >> > aspect weighs more than the free expression, I think. >> >> This is precisely the arguement that California courts have twice >> rejected in Bernstein v. US DOJ. In fact, my opinion of the 9th >> circuit's decision is that it definitively refutes this position. > >[ quote snipped ] > >This is a *really* nice quote. Damn; I'm going to have to go back >and actually read Bernstein. Does this mean I can forget writing a lengthy report anologizing the court process with the coding process? :) I can just give you the following hypothetical example: The Bad Coder (he gets things wrong): int hour = system_timer / (60 * 60); if (hour == 1) printf("1"); if (hour == 2) printf("2"); if (hour == 3) printf("3"); if (hour == 4) printf("4"); if (hour == 5) printf("5"); if (hour == 6) printf("6"); The Ugly Coder (gets things wrong and tries to show off): int hour = system_timer/3600; switch (hour) { case 1 : printf("1"); case 2 : printf("2"); case 3 : printf("3"); case 4 : printf("4"); case 5 : printf("5"); case 6 : printf("6"); default : printf("%d", hour); } The Good Coder: printf("%d", (int)system_timer/3600); >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 13:09:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA05389 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:09:27 -0500 Received: from mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (mailhub2.ncal.verio.com [204.247.247.54]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA05384 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:09:26 -0500 Received: from shell1.ncal.verio.com (gwachob@shell1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.248.254]) by mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA18149 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:09:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (gwachob@localhost) by shell1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA12905 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:09:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: shell1. ncal.verio.com: gwachob owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:09:41 -0800 (PST) From: Gabe Wachob To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic In-Reply-To: <00021609480200.05992@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Steven Barker wrote: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, you wrote: > > At 1:18 PM +0800 2/16/2000, Darrell Horrocks wrote: > < snip > > > (B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a > > copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the > > ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or > > otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner > > under this title. " > > My question is, does a copyright owner have the right to control access to a > published work? On what precident would such a right be granted? The MPAA > would like the court to interpret a movie as a performance, for which they > *can* control access, but if it is considered published material (like a book) > then they should not have the right to control access to a movie they sell > after it is purchased on DVD. There is a doctrine (wish I had a good case that summarizes it nicely) called the "first-sale doctrine" which basically says that when you sell a copy of a piece of work, that the purchaser can turn around and resell or give away that particular copy of the work. This first sale doctrine in part has prompted the software industry to *license* you copies of software instead of *selling* you copies of software. Its a consumer takeaway in UCITA, btw. But the point is that there are limits to the "exclusive rights" granted to copyright holders by the Copyright Act. And absent the DMCA, the copyright act probably wouldn't make distributing the DeCSS code against the law. Even without the DMCA, however, its possible that a producer of DVD's could sell you a *license* with restrictive terms including limiting you from reading the DVD except through an approved reader (esp. if UCITA is adopted). Even then, however, it would be a much more difficult argument that distribution of DeCSS would be some sort of contributory infringment (in fact, this would be very similar to the Betamax case - the 'substantial noninfringing use' standard). And of course, with no DMCA in place, fair use would have a large role. BUT, the DMCA is here. If the DMCA is construed as giving authors new rights (query: who has standing under the DMCA?), then the DMCA is pretty damning. If, however, its merely construed as a clarification of the current copyright regime (to conform to the WIPO agreements), then perhaps (as I I've said before), it could be construed to be limited by the very same doctrines (first sale, etc) that copyright law itself is limited by. -Gabe ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gabe Wachob - http://www.aimnet.com/~gwachob As of today, the U.S. Constitution has been in force for 77,305 days When this message was sent, 4,010,983 seconds have passed in Y2K From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 13:25:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA13317 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:25:36 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA13314 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:25:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 14653 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Feb 2000 18:04:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20000216180435.14652.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:04:35 PST Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:04:35 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Off-topic: Open Law discussions To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Wendy Seltzer wrote: > The mailing list seems to be a good incubator -- because it's push > rather than pull, it generates a lot of discussion. The next step seems > to be to move threads from the list onto a web board (or another more > "fixed" form) where they can be refined. In this way, we will be building > a store of data and basic points, almost FAQ-style, and can narrow the > set of open questions. I agree with this. The volume of ideas coming out of this mailing list is huge, but it's like trying to drink from a fire hose. Somehow we've got to distill the good ideas, get them into a more static form, and most importantly, start supporting them with legal research. > Thoughts from the non-lawyers on whether the slashcode or another > forum would work well for this? The advantages of having a moderation system are obvious. However, the push nature of a mailing list creates a dynamic that I wouldn't want to give up, so perhaps we have both. I think FAQ writing is a good model to look at. FAQ's are usually written by somebody who has been following a discusion list and who starts distilling the wisdom into a coherent document. What I suggest is that we start making arguement outlines and putting them in the discussion forum. I think the slashdot model will work well. A new outline "runs" like a story on slashdot. Comments, supporting evidence, rebuts, etc can be made and moderation will bubble the good points up. Then the outline authors (or somebody else I suppose) can strengthen the arguement and post again. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 13:25:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA13363 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:25:54 -0500 Received: from mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.10.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13360 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:25:52 -0500 Received: from vsm83 (VSM83.fys.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.81.83]) by mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id TAA117762 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:26:13 +0100 Message-Id: <200002161826.TAA117762@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be> From: "Eric Seynaeve" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:29:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution In-reply-to: <20000216183705.A4928@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> References: <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk>; from Howard Richardson on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:11:32PM -0000 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 16 Feb 00, at 18:37, Roland Nagtegaal wrote: > The strategy I am suggesting is: > * first: prove that DeCSS is not needed for > both professional and amateur piracy, > * second: make a strong case for needing DeCSS > to exercise your fair use right: to be able to make Open Source > DVD playing applications, in order to view your legally bought > DVDs, I have a though here. What if MPAA or DVD-CA all of the sudden decides to licence a commercial DVD player for Linux? The point that we want an open source DVD player might not hit the judge as fundamental: "You can play DVD's under Linux so what are you complaining about?". Or should the judge only accept the situation as it was on the moment that DeCSS was made? > * third: if you can prove that you have the right to view a > legally bought DVD anywhere on the Earth, not just in the region > it is coded for, you can argue that breaking the encryption > is needed to exercize that right. It doesn't say anywhere on a > DVD that you're not _allowed_ to view it outside a region, right? This is the point that will most likely be the easiest to play in public but does not matter for the trials. Maybe EFF should sue MPAA on the ground of region codes. There are DVD's that are better in the European version then in the USA versions (pan&scan vs. letterbox). > Well, I'm obviously not a lawyer, my english is not native, and I'm > tired, but how could this case be lost if you prove those 3 points ? > > Also, I think that these points can be most easily defended in the > media, and communicated to the masses, especially the third. > > > Roland Nagtegaal > Leiden University VSM Celestijnenlaan 200D B-3001 Belgium e-mail: Eric.Seynaeve@fys.kuleuven.ac.be 'Experiments should be repoducible -- they all should fail in the same way' Finagle's Fifth Rule From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 13:27:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA13686 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:27:48 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13683 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:27:46 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07868 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:27:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:27:50 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic Message-ID: <20000216132750.H4920@nacs.net> References: <200002161529.HAA15412@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002161529.HAA15412@ns1.filetron.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 07:29:19AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > There's a problem: The courts, I think, recognize that an encryption arms race is costly, especially when you also have to change the hardware design constantly. So what happened is that DMCA was created so that if the seller demonstrates some intent to encrypt then regardless of effectiveness it's illegal to break it. However DMCA is kinda vague about fair use which could be a good weapon against this nonsense. > The encryption arms race is not costly. We can make a fairly decent guess as to the life cycle of an encryption algorithm, and there exists today encryption algorithms which will outlast the life-cycle of DVD. Couple this with the fact that a DVD designers didn't need to design the encryption himself, he could have used encryption algorithms already subjected to peer review (and therefore not as flawed, and less expensive). As a matter of fact, I would bet that a raw encryption algorithm implementation has a longer life-cycle than most software. Of course, bad encryption algorithms would probably have one of the shortest life-cycles. life-cycle of software defined as the length of time between two rewrites. I need to bring up the interesting point here, as I realize it, that it should be obvious to any programmer here, that the DVD design could have been done with standard public-key cryptography and a time-tested stream cipher and it would have easily and proveably been thousands of times more secure. The only advantage to using their own, so it seems, is that they have the ability to license it, control the player market, and call it a trade secret. Put that one in your ammo. Although I am fairly certain of the elements presented above, I would appreciate one of the cryptographers verifying this. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 14:06:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20754 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:06:40 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20751 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:06:39 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19251 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:06:46 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:06:46 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copying DVD's vs. Network Distribution In-Reply-To: <20000216163217.A4094@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Why would you need the obscene amount of disk: stream it live. The other thing is why use a DVD burner: use a set-top DVD to the S-video inputs of your framegrabber. I'd say you could do it with the "CI$/M$N special" ~$400 comps, especially if they have a "All-in-Wonder" type card. On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Roland Nagtegaal wrote: > > That is to say, > > can you decode a DVD and put it on the Internet for all to see without using > > DeCSS? Also, does it make decoding the DVD SIGNIFICANTLY easier than was > > possible before its existence? > > The answer is yes, of course this is possible. > Use a real-time framegrabber. > One setup: run windows inside linux, using vmWare for instance, and play a movie. > Use a framegrabber/audiograbber and record your movie, directly from the screen. > You are going to need about 80GB to do this, but o.k. clearly this can be done. > Then you can make mpeg2 out of it, or whatever you want, including putting > that unencrypted mpeg2 on a DVD with a normal DVD burner, and I think this > will play in a normal player. > You don't need DeCSS to do all this at all, you just need a fast computer > with lots of RAM and lots of diskspace. And a DVD burner. > Such a computer can be bought for under $3000,- I think. > I don't know how much a DVD burner costs. > Let's say, if you can afford a car, you can afford this. > > Now is this correct or not? > If it is correct, and this can be demonstrated, the MPAA has to go an prohibit > framegrabbers as well. > > > > > If it does make it possible or significantly easier to decode a DVD and > > distribute it over the Internet, then that could be a big hole in any technology > > arguments that are made against the MPAA. The issue of duplicaitng DVD's is > > important, but I think the MPAA's greatest fear is to see the DVD version of > > Napster coming out a few years down the road. > > > > ---Steve > Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email galt@inconnu.isu.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 17:01:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA17729 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:01:08 -0500 Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA17725 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:01:07 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21383 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:53:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15444 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:47:41 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200002161809.KAA30916@ns1.filetron.com> References: <200002161809.KAA30916@ns1.filetron.com> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:46:26 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I would like to propose a different avenue of attack on Judge Kaplan's decision granting a preliminary injunction against posting of DeCSS. In order to justify the restrictions on free speech imposed by his injunction, the Judge repeatedly minimizes the importance of the DeCSS code's expressive content (see quotes below). The Judge assumes that the only consumers of the ideas in DeCSS would be other programmers. But there is another class with deep interest: investors. All of the plaintiffs are large, publicly traded companies. Many have made statements in the past about the value and strength of DVD's copy protection scheme. Many have also made statements directly or through their industry association about the high cost of piracy. Investors have a right to know if DeCSS portends reduced profits in the future. They also have a right to know if past statements by the plaintiffs were false and whether the plaintiffs knew or should have known they were false. Investors also have a right to know if the plaintiffs exercised due diligence in adopting CSS, given what the state of the art was at the time. All of these factors could influence future investment decisions and could even be the basis for litigation against the plaintiffs. I would argue that public availability of the DeCSS source code essential for investors to get accurate answers to these questions. Even though most investors cannot assess the source code for themselves they will rely on experts, privately or through the press. The opinions of these experts will be materially sharpened by access to the DeCSS source code. To a knowledgeable individual, DeCSS tells the story of what actually happened, much like an eye witness. Further an actual demonstration of the breach of CSS may be essential to gain the attention of investors, and perhaps the Securities and Exchange Commission. Note that statements by the industry immediately after DeCSS story broke downplayed the significance of DeCSS. Suppression of DeCSS helps the plaintiffs keep their stockholders and the SEC in the dark. History shows the importance of a demonstration. For example, there were many academic studies pointing to the weakness of DES. However efforts to replace it and to permit export of stronger ciphers did not gain much momentum until the EFF's construction of a working DES cracking engine. See for example http://www.ams.org/notices/200003/fea-landau.pdf In balancing the interests of the movie industry against First Amendment concerns, the investing public's rights should be place on the First Amendment side of the scale. In performing this balancing, the likelihood that the DeCSS toothpaste can be put back into the tube (small) must be weighed against the likelihood that the investing public will remain unaware of the potential financial impact of DeCSS (high). Judge Kaplan assumed that there was little First Amendment value in publishing DeCSS. I believe my investor argument proves him wrong. Arnold Reinhold Here are some quotes from Judge Kaplan's Memorandum Opinion http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-mo.htm : "In determining the constitutionality of governmental restriction on speech, courts traditionally have balanced the public interest in the restriction against the public interest in the kind of speech at issue." "Although this Court has assumed that DeCSS has at least some expressive content, the expressive aspect appears to be minimal when compared to its functional component." "Executable computer code of the type at issue in this case does little to further traditional First Amendment interests." "The classic prior restraint cases were dramatically different from this one. ... In each case, therefore, the government sought to suppress speech at the very heart of First Amendment concern---expression about public issues of the sort that is indispensable to self government. And while the prior restraint doctrine has been applied well beyond the sphere of political expression, we deal here with something new altogether---computer code, a fundamentally utilitarian construct even assuming it embodies some expressive element. Hence, it would be a mistake simply to permit its assumed expressive element to drive a characterization of the code as speech no different from the Pentagon Papers, the publication of a newspaper, or the exhibition of a motion picture and then to apply prior restraint rhetoric without a more nuanced consideration of the competing concerns. " "On the other side of the coin, the First Amendment interests served by the dissemination of DeCSS prior to a trial on the merits are minimal. ... Hence, those of the traditional rationales for the prior restraint doctrine that relate to inhibiting the transmission and receipt of ideas are of attenuated relevance here, even assuming that skilled programmers might learn something about encryption from studying the DeCSS code." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 17:23:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23390 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:23:32 -0500 Received: from dial128.roadrunner.com (dial128.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.128]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA23386 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:23:29 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial128.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01374 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:26:31 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:26:30 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] An outline of attack on 1201, mostly on constitutional ground Message-ID: <20000216152630.A1286@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I don't claim that this how it must be, but I think a sketch like this will be helpful, both as a reference point, and a doc to criticize. I hope my abbreviated English is still comprehensible. Clearly, many citations to existing (case) law are necessary for this sketch to work. Those citations are likely to result in significant revisions of this outline. Similar ideas also occur under different heading. These should be unified if possible. ====== (1) Circumvention is reading, reading is comprehension, comprehension is descrabling, descrambling is circumvention. (a) Reading involves an act of copying data into your brain, even if transiently. (b) Reading is distinguished from copying by the act of comprehension, not the (only some times) transient nature of copying. (c) The right to read is relevant to anticircumvention 1201(a). (2) (a) Fair-use generally preserves the right of all to _copy_ or _perform_ under certain conditions. (b) Copy is not made as end of its own, it is done so that the copies may eventually be read. Therefore, right-to-read underpins fair-use. (3) (a) Encryption provides a measure of confidentiality, in this case to published expressive material. (b) The choice of language can provide confidentiality. (c) The choice of language is a political act, and may not be regulated by the state, even when it results in confidentiality. (d) 1201(a) regulates confidentiality of published, copyrighted works. This could result in regulation of language choice under 1201. (4) The right-to-read (RTR) is an inherent right. Abridgement is very rare: (a) Non-gov't: Catholic Church in Renaissance Europe punished people who read books, not just authors and printers. Galileo. (b) Gov't: "security clearance" and National security: (A) Ellsberg Pentagon papers case: gov't only tried to prevent publication of papers. No attempt to punish NY Times for reading them, even though claim was "Nat'l Security matter". No prior restraint of publication must be accompanied by right-to-read, otherwise it is not known what to publish. (5) (a) When MPAA members publish copyright notice on DVD, they never try to regulate home viewing, only other venues. Only now (DeCSS) do they seek to regulate --> (A) Licensed DVD player is authority to view at home, or (B) Purchase of DVD is auth. to view at home under first-sale? (b) MPAA seems to implicitly base claim on whether or not viewer purchased a licensed DVD player. (c) Collusion in player market, ties to trade secret portion of case. (d) MPAA will claim that DeCSS does not respect region codes and that this is the basis of their objection to DeCSS. But this digs them deeper into market place collusion. Coors/Strohs "gentleman's agreement", no prior allowance in law for publishing different editions of books in diff regions. Facilitates censorship. (6) (a) Fair-use is not identical with right-to-read. Fair-use protects RTR. (b) Fair-use is damaged by anti-cirumvention. Copyright holder does not have right to dictate use after first sale. e.g. Criticism, so why do they have compelling interest in type of player used? (c) Performance is almost equal to RTR. Performance is compulsory license, so should be reading. (7) (a) In preceeding, private party using Congressional grant of monopoly. Regulation of RTR made by private party w/ Congressional auth. (b) Grant of I.M. (intellectual monopoly) based on what? Copyright clause? Copyright balanced by First Amend. In general, infringement is not protected. All other use protected by 1st Amend., even though private party hold copyright. (c) If circumvention derives from copyright, must be regulated by 1st Amend., circumvention must balance. Circumvention necessary to read --> Prior restraint. (8) (a) Need to establish circumvention is not infringement. Must have simple examples to demonstrate this, e.g. photocopy Chinese-language docs. (A) Control of reading is issue under 1201(a). Control provided by confidentiality measures. (B) Encryption is a confidentiality measure. (C) Language could be confidentiality measure under 1201(a). 1201(a) cannot distinguish between natural language, and engineered cryptosystem. (D) Even if law rewritten to distinguish natural language from engineered cryptosystem, 1201(a) would regulate comprehension of data. (b) Demonstration that crypto-keys on DVD are distinct from data, either can be copied without the other. (c) There is an explicit statement of relation between circumvention and fair-use in 1201. (9) Congress has no Constitutional auth. to regulate reading or comprehension under copyright clause. No historical basis for any claim that "securing exclusive rights" includes regulation of reading _in open, published, public literature_. Note to trade-secret law, is reading regulated in these cases. Probably yes. Material there is not published. Publication invalidates trade-secret status. (10) At issue in this case are published works: no right-not-to-publish at issue for MPAA memebers. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 17:31:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27801 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:31:37 -0500 Received: from dial96.roadrunner.com (dial96.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.96]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA27682 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:31:34 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial96.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01548 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:34:40 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:34:38 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] An outline of attack on 1201, mostly on constitutional ground Message-ID: <20000216153438.A1440@localhost> References: <20000216152630.A1286@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000216152630.A1286@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:26:30PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ahh, well. Please use the other outline. The other outline is clearly the one to discuss. More references. More complete. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 17:39:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA30165 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:39:38 -0500 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org (root@humbolt.geo.uu.nl [131.211.28.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA30136 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:39:36 -0500 Received: from agratax.demon.nl ([212.238.108.69]:13 "EHLO agratax.demon.nl") by humbolt.nl.linux.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:38:41 +0100 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50444 "EHLO localhost") by mirkwood.nl.linux.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:44:37 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:44:36 +0100 (CET) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@mirkwood.dummy.home To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Off-topic: Open Law discussions In-Reply-To: <001a01bf789c$263063c0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> Message-ID: Organisation: NL.linux.org (http://www.nl.linux.org/) X-Search-Engine-Bait: http://www.nl.linux.org/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Howard Richardson wrote: > Does anyone else on this list share my opinion that a mailing list > isn't the best way to organise our discussion? Threads come and go > and it's hard to track what is good and what is not. People tend > to just run with the current thread of thinking. > We need to have something like a central web page where people can > submit suggestions for approaches to each of the issues and then > each of these suggestions can have it's own discussion thread Sorry, this won't work. What _will_ work, though, is having a group of volunteers who are willing to document some of the points have been made on the list. > Does this sound like a better model to you than ad-hoc mailing lists? Not really. You are suggesting two things: - points should be moderated / approved / filtered - points should be openly discussed These two things are somewhat in contradiction with each other (not total contradiction, but it's bad enough). If we go for a /. like forum system, a number of things will happen: - points that people don't like are moderated away, even if they're correct and just hard to swallow for the people involved - popular points, however incorrect, will be moderated up - people will only read the things that aren't filtered out, leading to the same repetition of arguments that happens on a mailing list regards, Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 17:39:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA30176 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:39:39 -0500 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org (root@humbolt.geo.uu.nl [131.211.28.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA30159 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:39:37 -0500 Received: from agratax.demon.nl ([212.238.108.69]:13 "EHLO agratax.demon.nl") by humbolt.nl.linux.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:38:49 +0100 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49932 "EHLO localhost") by mirkwood.nl.linux.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:38:29 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:38:27 +0100 (CET) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@mirkwood.dummy.home To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The actual encryption itself. A changing tactic In-Reply-To: <00021609480200.05992@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: Organisation: NL.linux.org (http://www.nl.linux.org/) X-Search-Engine-Bait: http://www.nl.linux.org/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Steven Barker wrote: > IANAL, but I think I see one possible weakness in this law: > > On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, you wrote: > > At 1:18 PM +0800 2/16/2000, Darrell Horrocks wrote: > < snip > > > (B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a > > copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the > My question is, does a copyright owner have the right to control > access to a published work? On what precident would such a right > be granted? Indeed. Even the MPAA cannot protect "rights" that the copyright owners don't have in the first place. OTOH ... is there a lawyer present? :) Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 18:02:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA07838 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:02:07 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA07835 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:02:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 17770 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Feb 2000 23:02:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20000216230224.17769.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:02:24 PST Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:02:24 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] An outline of attack on 1201, mostly on constitutional ground To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think you make some strong points that aren't in the other outline, or that it glosses over. Why don't you try to create a "patch"? --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > Ahh, well. Please use the other outline. The other outline is clearly > the one to discuss. More references. More complete. > > > Paul > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 18:05:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA08705 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:05:55 -0500 Received: from dial185.roadrunner.com (dial185.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.185]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA08701 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:05:53 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial185.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01821 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:08:59 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:08:57 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted Message-ID: <20000216160857.A1610@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Wendy Seltzer on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:20:02PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > 1) DeCSS does not fall within the scope of the DMCA > A) Legitimate access occurs with authority of copyright holder This leaves me with a funny feeling, not because I disagree, but because that says some weird things about Congressional intent. It sounds to me like: (1) Play-back of any legal (i.e. non-infringing) copy would be exempt from 17 US 1201(a). (2) Only play-back from a disk that was an infringing copy would be subject to 1201(a). (3) Infringement would allow copyright holders to get at the person who did the unauthorized duplication. (4) Circumvention would be an offense committed by the person who operated the play-back device. (5) There might very well be no way for the play-back operator to tell if the copy is infringing or not. So why should they be sanctioned? (6) Can this be used by the MPAA to claim that this reading of the law is absurd? What have I missed? Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 18:29:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA17405 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:29:30 -0500 Received: from web503.mail.yahoo.com (web503.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.70]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA17322 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:29:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 18324 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Feb 2000 23:29:48 -0000 Message-ID: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web503.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:29:48 PST Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:29:48 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- "Arnold G. Reinhold" wrote: > [...] In order to justify the restrictions on free speech > imposed by his injunction, the Judge repeatedly minimizes the > importance of the DeCSS code's expressive content. [...] > The Judge assumes that the only consumers of the ideas in DeCSS would > be other programmers. You should not have to beg judges to find that your audience is "worthy" enough as a prerequisite to communicating. Perhaps with this judge we do and I think you make some very strong points. Sometimes the expressiveness lies in the implications of the text than in the text itself, and these implications have diverse and unpredicatible propagation. > [...] But there is another class with deep interest: > investors. All of the plaintiffs are large, publicly traded > companies. Not only do investors have an interest in the technical credibility of the company, but so do it's business partners and employees, present and future. If the MPAA had wanted to build an encryption system that would stand up to attack, it could have done so. Perhaps it would have had to hire more cryptographers than the NSA, but this is supply and demand working. Instead they seek protection from government to mitigate their technical incompetence while denying the just rewards to those who could have solved the technical problems associated with the problem. I've said before that the DMCA makes it illegal to demonstrate that the emporer wears no clothes. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 19:01:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27248 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:01:06 -0500 Received: from dial167.roadrunner.com (dial167.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.167]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA27194 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:01:00 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial167.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02027 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:04:06 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:04:05 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Partial patch to working outline: right to read Message-ID: <20000216170405.B1610@localhost> References: <20000216230224.17769.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000216230224.17769.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:02:24PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:02:24PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Why don't you try to create a "patch"? 2) Interpretations of the DMCA that prohibit DeCSS are unconstitutional [ ... ] E) A "Right to Read" exists in 1st and 9th Amendments i) Playback, accompanied by comprehension of expressive material, is "reading". This is the "Right to Read". ii) Decryption/descrambling is necessary for comprehension of encrypted expressive material. iii) 1201(a) regulates decryption of expressive (copyrighted?) material. iv) 1201(a) must not be interpreted as regulating reading (of non-infringing material?) a) 9th Amend.: No historical precedent for regulation of reading in Anglo-American law. b) 9th and 1st Amend's: Even in case of compelling state interest (national security, Ellsberg, Pentagon papers), no attempt to punish reading of papers by NY Times. c) 1st Amend.: State must not regulate reading to achieve the effect of prior restraint. v) Fair-use is right to duplicate copyrighted work in specified circumstances. Duplication is not the end objective of fair use. Eventually someone must read those copies. vi) Fair use protects the right to read from over-broad interpretation of infringement. vii) Creation of "anticircumvention" by 1201(a) must not be be a backdoor to overbroad "infringement". viii) 1201(a) must not be interpreted as restricting the current meaning of fair use. More to come later... Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 19:18:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA30333 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:18:18 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA30330 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:18:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 7930 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Feb 2000 00:18:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000217001839.7929.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:18:39 PST Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:18:39 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > > 1) DeCSS does not fall within the scope of the DMCA > > A) Legitimate access occurs with authority of copyright holder > > This leaves me with a funny feeling, not because I disagree, but > because that says some weird things about Congressional intent. I think the DMCA is intended to allow encrypted streaming content over the intenet on a pay-per-view or subscription basis. Something that would definately be covered would be a specialized device, such as a cable descrambler box that allowed non-paying customers access to material they had no right to view. > It sounds to me like: > > (1) Play-back of any legal (i.e. non-infringing) copy would be exempt > from 17 US 1201(a). As long as it's within the copyright grant "for private home use only", with an important limitation. By making a copy, you cannot expand the grant, nor can you "fork" the grant. Ie if you give somebody else the copy it's infringing. This is exactly as it is with unencrypted content. > (2) Only play-back from a disk that was an infringing copy would > be subject to 1201(a). Well, actually many uses of the original could be outside of the granted access, such as showing it at a restaurant and charging a cover. > (3) Infringement would allow copyright holders to get at the person > who did the unauthorized duplication. Come again? All I'm saying in 1A is they granted you home-grown player access along with licenced player access "for private home use only" > (4) Circumvention would be an offense committed by the person who > operated the play-back device. Well the act of circumvention isn't an offence until 1201(a)(1) takes affect and only then subject to the Librarian of Congresses non-infringing uses declaration. > (5) There might very well be no way for the play-back operator to > tell if the copy is infringing or not. So why should they be > sanctioned? If the MPAA can't put some kind non-forgable marker, say like a hologram of Jack Valenti's head, to demonstrate authentication, that's their problem. This is not hard and is common with softare and CD's. Now most "pirates" know they're pirating, but the existing laws provide adequately for this. > (6) Can this be used by the MPAA to claim that this reading of the > law is absurd? I don't think so, because it's nothing more than the way the law used to be and still is for non-encrypted products. Bryan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 22:20:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA00969 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:20:07 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA00966 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:20:02 -0500 Received: (qmail 9671 invoked by uid 502); 17 Feb 2000 03:23:20 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:23:20 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] An outline of attack on 1201, mostly on constitutional ground Message-ID: <20000216222320.H6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216152630.A1286@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000216152630.A1286@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:26:30PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:26:30PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > I don't claim that this how it must be, but I think a sketch like this > will be helpful, both as a reference point, and a doc to criticize. > I hope my abbreviated English is still comprehensible. Wow. You are really stuck on this "right to read" nonsense. I wouldn't mind it nearly as much if you didn't work so hard to make a point. If you have to build such convoluted logical structures to reach what should be a provable point, you don't have a provable point. > (1) Circumvention is reading, reading is comprehension, comprehension > is descrabling, descrambling is circumvention. Actually, reading is what you do after you've done the circumvention. One doesn't necessarily equate to the other. And you're still overlooking the simple fact that the intent of the law was obviously to give copyright owners the right to security measures over their work. See the other posts I've made regarding the differences between language and encryption. I'm fairly sure that any court would see the difference between the "descrambling" involved in comprehension of information and the intentional bypassing of a security measure meant to protect copyright rights, which by the way, are not merely limited to making copies. Your approach to logic seems to be "A is a fact, B is a fact, C is a fact, so logically D is true! Huh? No, I don't have to show how A and B is a fact. It just is!" I'm not impressed. Logic without evidence is nothing; you're providing no evidence. > (a) Reading involves an act of copying data into your brain, even > if transiently. > (b) Reading is distinguished from copying by the act of > comprehension, not the (only some times) transient nature of > copying. > (c) The right to read is relevant to anticircumvention 1201(a). There is no "right to read" beyond fair use. Cope with it. If you disagree, cite law that says "Congress will not pass laws denying the right to read." and I'll happily admit you're right. > > (6) (a) Fair-use is not identical with right-to-read. Fair-use protects > RTR. Can you point to law that says this, or are you making it up? > (b) Fair-use is damaged by anti-cirumvention. Copyright holder does > not have right to dictate use after first sale. e.g. Criticism, > so why do they have compelling interest in type of player used? Of course they do. The rights of the copyright owner don't end because you've paid money for something. If I write a novel and you pay for it, and then you turn around and publish a chapter from it in your local literary magazine, you better believe I can nail your ass to the wall for copyright infringement. Fact is, there are legal limits to how far criticism can go if it involves quoting large amounts of copyrighted material. If I want to twist the facts as much as you're doing here, I could claim that one such prohibited post-sale activity would be unauthorized public performance; distributing an access-control-circumvention technology could be construed as enabling such an activity. Note that I don't claim that at all - I try not to warp the facts to promote my pet theories. At any rate, if you believe a copyright owner has no right to dictate limits on your usage rights of a legally purchased media, you've obviously never officially copyrighted your own work or read a license agreement. > (9) Congress has no Constitutional auth. to regulate reading or > comprehension under copyright clause. No historical basis for any > claim that "securing exclusive rights" includes regulation of > reading _in open, published, public literature_. Note to trade-secret > law, is reading regulated in these cases. Probably yes. Material there > is not published. Publication invalidates trade-secret status. > > (10) At issue in this case are published works: no right-not-to-publish > at issue for MPAA memebers. The interesting part here is that you still don't cite law. You also seem to have this affliction towards "pure logic", i.e. logic completely devoid of real world evidence. It comes off like you're playing word games, hoping that other people will be just confused enough to think you're being smart. If you really want to pursue this "right to read" angle, first please acknowledge that "right to read" is not in the law. There is a right to general usage - that is called fair use. Then please go over your argument and then draw analogies with actual evidence or cited material. By the way, Paul, I don't intend to get into an argument with you here; I really mean you no ill will. But if you send me another emotional rant in private email - basically a temper tantrum because someone doesn't agree with your pet theory - I'll take it and post it here, and I'll reply to it here. If the only way you can get your point across is to privately bitch at those people who disagree with you, hoping they will go away, then all I can say is that I'm really glad you're not my lawyer. Address the points I've outlined or admit that the points are flawed, but keep it public. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 22:22:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA01065 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:22:10 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA01061 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:22:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 9677 invoked by uid 502); 17 Feb 2000 03:25:41 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:25:41 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] An outline of attack on 1201, mostly on constitutional ground Message-ID: <20000216222541.I6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216152630.A1286@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000216152630.A1286@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:26:30PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:26:30PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > I don't claim that this how it must be, but I think a sketch like this > will be helpful, both as a reference point, and a doc to criticize. > I hope my abbreviated English is still comprehensible. > > Clearly, many citations to existing (case) law are necessary for this > sketch to work. Those citations are likely to result in significant > revisions of this outline. Similar ideas also occur under different > heading. These should be unified if possible. My apologies. I went back and looked at the original post again and noticed that you stated right here that citations are necessary. I accused you in my previous reply of not posting citations - I'm afraid I crossed the line here. The rest of the post stands. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 22:31:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA02712 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:31:05 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA02709 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:31:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 30043 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2000 03:26:37 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2000 03:26:37 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA15909; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:31:22 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:31:22 -0800 Message-Id: <200002170331.TAA15909@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Divide the outline into several pieces Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That would allow us to better focus on the different points. I'm going to try flesh out the source is speech argument a little more. Sure the Supreme Court supports us but is that enough in this case? Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 22:44:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA05038 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:44:23 -0500 Received: from dial115.roadrunner.com (dial115.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.115]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA05035 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:44:20 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial115.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02793 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:47:27 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:47:26 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA cannot hide behind DMCA to create antitrust violations Message-ID: <20000216204726.A2232@localhost> References: <20000216230224.17769.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000216230224.17769.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:02:24PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 4) MPAA cannot hide behind DMCA to create antitrust violations A) CSS used for price fixing through use of region codes i) No historical precedent for state-sponsored region codes in publishing. ii) Giving DVD region codes the force of law allows the regulation of commerce on a regional basis. iii) Constitution, art. 1, sect. 9, "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce" prohibits regional preference within the US. iv) Coors-Strohs "gentleman's agreement" is illegal restraint of trade. v) Copyright clause cannot be used to enact legislation that gives force of law to "gentleman's agreement" restraint of trade in DVDs. B) DVD copyright access grant cannot be "tied" to CSS purchase i) Right to private reading after first-sale cannot be licensed. 1st and 9th Amend. See 2)E) above. ii) "Tie" is in fact attempt to quash market for legally reverse- engineered play-back devices. iii) DMCA must not be interpreted so that the copyright clause is used, even indirectly, to regulate trade in play-back devices, because devices have no expressive content. C) Supreme court's case US v. Paramount (1948) rejected copyright justifications for these D) Preference to Windows OS reenforces Microsoft monopoly From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 23:04:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA08247 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:04:08 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA08214 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:04:06 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id UAA31363 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:03:58 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:03:57 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Divide the outline into several pieces Message-ID: <20000216200357.P4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200002170331.TAA15909@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200002170331.TAA15909@ns1.filetron.com>; from rmarian@linuxstart.com on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 07:31:22PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian writes: > That would allow us to better focus on the different points. > > I'm going to try flesh out the source is speech argument a little more. Sure the Supreme Court supports us but is that enough in this case? Where? The 9th Circuit believes that (subject to appeal), which is why the trade secret actions were brought there and the DMCA actions elsewhere. Maybe. :-) Remember that there is a divergent precedent in the Karn case. I think the "computer software is legally protected expression" precedent is _the most_ necessary and important thing that could possibly come out of these cases, except that the export control stuff seemed like a better place to establish that (civil litigation over something with economic significance is _not_ usually where good First Amendment caselaw comes from). I hope that this argument isn't limited to source code. One consequence of that would be that efforts to make a computer program more useful to people could be seen as reducing the program's legal protection. Why should that be? Why should the "functional _versus_ expressive" argument be taken at face value? Computers are interesting to me in the first place _because_ they irrevocably blur the distinction between "expressive" and "functional". That's why I'm here (the computer world) at all. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 16 23:21:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09604 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:21:11 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA09601 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:21:07 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id UAA31386 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:20:59 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:20:59 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA cannot hide behind DMCA to create antitrust violations Message-ID: <20000216202059.Q4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000216230224.17769.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> <20000216204726.A2232@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000216204726.A2232@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 08:47:26PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > 4) MPAA cannot hide behind DMCA to create antitrust violations This seems like a line of argument to be used in an antitrust lawsuit, not in a defense to the DMCA charges. > A) CSS used for price fixing through use of region codes > i) No historical precedent for state-sponsored region codes in > publishing. > ii) Giving DVD region codes the force of law allows the > regulation of commerce on a regional basis. It does, but there is no evidence yet that the industry will actually do that. > iii) Constitution, art. 1, sect. 9, "No preference shall be > given by any regulation of commerce" prohibits regional > preference within the US. > iv) Coors-Strohs "gentleman's agreement" is illegal restraint of > trade. > v) Copyright clause cannot be used to enact legislation > that gives force of law to "gentleman's agreement" restraint > of trade in DVDs. Discrimination against other countries is _routine_ and even mandated by US law. If you fail to properly discriminate against other countries (tariffs, quotas, ITARs, anti-boycott, all sorts of reporting regulations), you can be convicted of a felony! Region codes don't currently discriminate against any state in the US. They _could_, be wouldn't a court consider that possibility merely speculative until it actually happens? If Congress gives companies the power to create a system which could be used to ban people in Minnesota from buying some product, why will a court review that decision unless there is some evidence that the system will actually be used that way? So, maybe someone should make up a new encryption system which is overtly designed to discriminate against residents of some particular place, thus restricting interstate commerce... I'm afraid that what would happen is a simple antitrust prosecution, and not a direct challenge to the DMCA. The DMCA in that case would simply be a tool used to violate other laws; that doesn't necessarily mean that the DMCA itself is invalid. > B) DVD copyright access grant cannot be "tied" to CSS purchase > i) Right to private reading after first-sale cannot be licensed. > 1st and 9th Amend. See 2)E) above. True, except that copyright is already fundamentally inconsistent with free expression (search for "Nimmer" in the New York transcript and Judge Kaplan's ruling). > ii) "Tie" is in fact attempt to quash market for legally reverse- > engineered play-back devices. True, except that such devices no longer exist. :-) > iii) DMCA must not be interpreted so that the copyright clause > is used, even indirectly, to regulate trade in play-back > devices, because devices have no expressive content. Plaintiffs rely on the "necessary and proper" clause. Look at Judge Kaplan's ruling. The Congress is given essentially arbitrary powers to enforce public policy, as long as it believes that it has a good reason. So, your reading of the Ninth Amendment sounds like mere common sense to me, but as far as I know, it's the exact opposite of what courts have been finding for a long time. > C) Supreme court's case US v. Paramount (1948) rejected copyright > justifications for these Could you summarize this? > D) Preference to Windows OS reenforces Microsoft monopoly I don't think that anyone can prove this point. First of all, MacOS players were licensed; second, CSS has been licensed for hardware implementations which are more interoperable (including Linux and supposedly FreeBSD); third, if someone wants to make the "they wouldn't license Linux players" argument, then the industry's main _demonstrable_ objection is to open-source players, not to players on open-source platforms. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 00:53:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA30593 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:53:23 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA30590 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:53:22 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09664 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:53:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:53:17 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Divide the outline into several pieces Message-ID: <20000217005317.O4920@nacs.net> References: <200002170331.TAA15909@ns1.filetron.com> <20000216200357.P4856@cty-alum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000216200357.P4856@cty-alum.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 08:03:57PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Computers are interesting to me in the first place _because_ they > irrevocably blur the distinction between "expressive" and "functional". > That's why I'm here (the computer world) at all. On the "expressive" vs. "functional" argument, I've personally spoken with Professor Peter Junger (of CWRU, case paralell to Bernstein) on this, and it's something I take very personally and have been thinking about for quite some time. FYI to lawyers, the best place to understand quite how expressive, creative, artistic, ambiguous, and unique source code can be (just like writing, it isn't necessarily expressive) is in the Perl manpages. Perl is probably the most possibly expressive computer language, which follows easily from the fact that it's creator is an accomplished linguist. I can provide exact quotations and pointers, but I don't think that anyone intends to argue that on this case or on this forum, so I'll not spam. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 11:00:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10267 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:00:46 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10264 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:00:45 -0500 Received: from [38.32.90.227] (helo=ip227.bedford16.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12LTMa-0004uB-00; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:01:08 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] any need to show actual damages? Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:00:19 GMT Message-ID: <38b019be.9152199@mail.tiac.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id LAA10265 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Just a thought from a lurking writer/consultant... Is there any need for the plaintiffs to show actual current damages? (Perhaps not to Judge Kaplan.) So much of the case seems to be based on what will happen if the iceberg meets the keel. But DVD is a product on the shelves today, not some potential technology. How can penalties be based on fable only? Ron Gustavson http://www.tiac.net/users/rongus __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 12:30:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA22392 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:30:22 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA22381 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:30:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 1013 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Feb 2000 17:30:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000217173034.1012.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:30:34 PST Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:30:34 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA cannot hide behind DMCA to create antitrust violations To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Seth David Schoen wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > 4) MPAA cannot hide behind DMCA to create antitrust violations > > This seems like a line of argument to be used in an antitrust > lawsuit, not in a defense to the DMCA charges. Indeed, I think there should be a countersuit. I'll explain US v. Paramount below which sets a very strong precedent. The point is that there are limitations on the copyright protections and on the ability of Congress to use it's copyright power to grant protection when doing so contradicts the purpose of its copyright power. > > A) CSS used for price fixing through use of region codes Region codes are used to create and supply price fixing within the US (uniformly) by creating an artificially lower supply of DVD's that are playable here. The region codes allow the sale here of DVD's at a higher price than other regions because cross-pollination of market forces is stiffled. > Discrimination against other countries is _routine_ and even mandated > by US law. If you fail to properly discriminate against other > countries (tariffs, quotas, ITARs, anti-boycott, all sorts of reporting > regulations), you can be convicted of a felony! The price-fixing is intended to harm against American consumers. It's effect on other countries is not relevent to this arguement > I'm afraid that what would happen is a simple antitrust prosecution, > and not a direct challenge to the DMCA. The DMCA in that case would > simply be a tool used to violate other laws; that doesn't necessarily > mean that the DMCA itself is invalid. I have never met a "simple" antitrust prosecution :-] The point is that the outcome of this antitrust case could be to invalidate copyright protections that are used for anti-competitive purposes on the grounds that these are outside the scope of the copyright power. > > B) DVD copyright access grant cannot be "tied" to CSS purchase > > i) Right to private reading after first-sale cannot be > > licensed. 1st and 9th Amend. See 2)E) above. > > True, except that copyright is already fundamentally inconsistent > with free expression (search for "Nimmer" in the New York transcript > and Judge Kaplan's ruling). We're trying to argue that Kaplan is wrong, so forgive me for not adopting his most peculiar views. I would argue that copyright is wholely consistant with the first amendment, since it protects and promotes _freedom_ of speech and press by recognizing in a limited way the concept of property within that context. Fair Use and the right to read, interpret, and examine is nothing more than the implied boundaries among the freedoms of property, speech, and press inherent in the Constitution. Congress has no power to set these aside. There's some good language supporting my views here in Douglass's dissent to denial of certiori in Lee V Runge. > Plaintiffs rely on the "necessary and proper" clause. Look at Judge > Kaplan's ruling. The Congress is given essentially arbitrary powers > to enforce public policy, as long as it believes that it has a good > reason. I prefer to read the Supreme Court's recent US v. Lopez (1995) decision where they reject such reasoning in the context of the commerce clause. Search for "We start from first principles." in Rehnquist's opinion (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html). The next sentance should help you and Kaplan get past this "arbitrary powers" nonsense: "The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers." I also urge you to read Thomas's concurring opinion, which is in my opinion, his finest work to date, and hopefully one that will influence future courts: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html > > C) Supreme court's case US v. Paramount (1948) rejected > > copyright justifications for these > > Could you summarize this? The supreme court upheld Sherman Act claims against the movie industry for price-fixing and tying. They explicitly limited copyright protections for the movie industry in doing so. The price fixing occured when movie studios used theater licencing to inflate box office prices. The tying occured through "block licencing" whereby one movie's licence was sold contingent on another's. There are some choice quotes regarding the copyright power in the decision which is available at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=334&invol=131 "For a copyright may no more be used than a patent to deter competition between rivals in the exploitation of their licenses." "That enlargement of the monopoly of the copyright was condemned below in reliance on the principle which forbids the owner of a patent to condition its use on the purchase or use of patented or unpatented materials." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 12:37:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA25132 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:37:52 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA24832 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:37:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 6101 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Feb 2000 17:37:53 -0000 Message-ID: <20000217173753.6100.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:37:53 PST Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:37:53 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Divide the outline into several pieces To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Rares Marian wrote: > That would allow us to better focus on the different points. I agree. > I'm going to try flesh out the source is speech argument a little > more. Sure the Supreme Court supports us but is that enough in this > case? Go for it. You might try to find the flag burning case. It probably contains a definition of expression. There are no doubt other cases. The arguement is (1) source is speech, so (2) courts must apply strict scrutiny, and (3) strict scrutiny fails. This is mostly a research project into First Amendment precedents. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 12:49:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28328 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:49:02 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28324 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:49:01 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11190 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:48:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:48:54 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Time-Warner's comments on 1201(a)(1) Message-ID: <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu IANAL. Excerpts from Time Warner's comments on 1201(a)(1) (in response to a notice of inquiry): "It would be exceedingly difficult -- if not impossible -- to limit the permitted circumvention to uses that are not infringing or defensible under the fair use doctrine as distinct from uses that are neither and are consumptive or even commercial." "... the users, however, are not prevented from making non-infringing uses or uses as to which fair use would be a defense." That admission and evidence that reverse engineering for purposes of compatibility is supported under fair use is all which would be necessary to determine that the anti-circumvention section is unconstitutional, no? This seems correct, but I can't shake the feeling that because of my technical background I'm making some sort of assumption which a judge wouldn't buy without explanation. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice P.S. Full document available at: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/043.pdf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 12:50:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29144 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:50:28 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA29141 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:50:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 8309 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Feb 2000 17:50:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20000217175035.8308.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:50:35 PST Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:50:35 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] any need to show actual damages? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ron Gustavson wrote: > Is there any need for the plaintiffs to show actual current damages? There is a section on "civil remedies" in the DMCA. As I recall (sorry too lazy to look it up), there are some minor statutory penalities in addition to compensatory damages. So the answer is yes and no. > But DVD is a product on the shelves today, not some potential > technology. How can penalties be based on fable only? To my knowledge no one has report a single incident of DeCSS enabled DVD pirating. I think there is a strong case to be made that an open source player for Linux and others would have a positive affect on DVD sales. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 13:03:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA06769 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:03:53 -0500 Received: from gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (smtp.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06750 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:03:52 -0500 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20298 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:04:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002171804.NAA20298@gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu> X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Thu, 17 Feb 00 13:04:52 -0600 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:04:52 -0600 From: Douglas Hudson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00103035 Subject: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: InterChange (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There seem to be two antitrust theories against the MPAA's use of access controls. (1) Tying/Group Boycott. The MPAA is free to use access controls to protect its copyright. That was the underlying intent of the DMCA. What is more questionable is using its market power in the movie industry to control the downstream market in DVD players. The MPAA might respond that the Noerr doctrine protects this use; the best response would be that a group boycot (which is effectively what this is, boycotting linux) is not forgiven because the industry fears the boycotted party will violate IP laws. See Fashion Originators Guild, Paramount. (2) Copyright misuse. The DMCA prevents circumvention of access controls. The purpose of it was to protect copyright on digital media. The MPAA is using access controls, all right, but they have used the controls to grant protection -greater- than the copyright laws afford. The DMCA says nothing about allowing creators of access controls to make those controls more (or less) restrictive than copyright law allows. Thus, the MPAA appears to be using the DMCA as a vehicle to "overprotect" copyrighted material. This could very well be a new form of copyright misuse -- can anyone guess what the general penalty for copyright misuse is? Wouldn't that be a riot. :) -Doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 13:09:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10692 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:09:51 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10657 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:09:49 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id KAA32223 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:09:40 -0800 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:09:39 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Time-Warner's comments on 1201(a)(1) Message-ID: <20000217100939.U4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net>; from jasonf@shell.nacs.net on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 12:48:54PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jason M. Felice writes: > IANAL. > > Excerpts from Time Warner's comments on 1201(a)(1) (in response to a > notice of inquiry): > > "It would be exceedingly difficult -- if not impossible -- to limit the > permitted circumvention to uses that are not infringing or defensible under > the fair use doctrine as distinct from uses that are neither and are > consumptive or even commercial." It would be _easy_ -- by repealing the DMCA and relying on existing copyright law. > "... the users, however, are not prevented from making non-infringing uses or > uses as to which fair use would be a defense." Time Warner wrote this in response to a direct question which asked whether they believe this is the case. You should interpret this sentence as simply saying "No". I don't think this sentence is even referring to circumvention at all. A portion of Time Warner's comment seemed to explicitly deny that circumvention would ever be necessary in order to exercise fair use rights. I believe you should read this, not as "it's OK with us if users circumvent access control in order to exercise fair use rights", but rather as "our access control systems do not prevent users from exercising fair use rights". That is, users are _already_ not prevented (technically) from making non-infringing uses. > That admission and evidence that reverse engineering for purposes of > compatibility is supported under fair use is all which would be necessary > to determine that the anti-circumvention section is unconstitutional, no? "Fair use" is _not mentioned in the Constitution_; it's only defined by Title 17, to which the DMCA is an amendment. Many people believe that fair use is implied by the purpose given in the Copyright Clause, or by other things. But the DMCA doesn't directly limit fair use; it allows private entities to effectively limit fair use, and then sue if people evade their limitations. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 13:43:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10802 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:43:36 -0500 Received: from fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (fb01.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.19]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10799 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:43:35 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihgv.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.70.31]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA07325 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:43:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002171843.NAA07325@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:37:56 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Time-Warner's comments on 1201(a)(1) In-Reply-To: <20000217100939.U4856@cty-alum.org> References: <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth Schoen wrote: >"Fair use" is _not mentioned in the Constitution_; it's only defined by >Title 17, to which the DMCA is an amendment. > >Many people believe that fair use is implied by the purpose given in the >Copyright Clause, or by other things. > >But the DMCA doesn't directly limit fair use; it allows private entities >to effectively limit fair use, and then sue if people evade their >limitations. This is quite interesting, Seth. Would your see this right to sue an overreaching of DMCA, that is, it grants a private party a right not provided under the Constitution, and moreover, sets up an unfair commercial advantage for the copyright holder? This is not to say that commercial law is constrained by the Constitution unless the terms of private contracts violate consitutional rights, which is hardly unprecedented, indeed, quite a few rights of individuals have been transgressed by commercial contracts, that is, until it dawns on the victims that business practices are not absolute -- despite the GM chairman who avowed that "what's good for business is good for the country." This is a truism of business schools, to be sure, rather a that faith that free market is a supreme good -- for those who operate it, lubricate it, ajudicate it, aggressively apologize for it, prevaricating blithely, "but, surely, everyone knows that stealing copyrighted material from creators is good for the copyright industry, but stealing from the anti-circumventioners is illegal, we know, we wrote the law, and shall rewrite it again as necessary." -- thus spake Jack Valenti, Harvard Business School and Political Bag Man. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 14:33:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02307 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:33:21 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA02304 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:33:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 11147 invoked by uid 502); 17 Feb 2000 19:37:07 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:37:07 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Time-Warner's comments on 1201(a)(1) Message-ID: <20000217143707.L6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> <20000217100939.U4856@cty-alum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000217100939.U4856@cty-alum.org>; from Seth David Schoen on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:09:39AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:09:39AM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Jason M. Felice writes: > > "Fair use" is _not mentioned in the Constitution_; it's only defined by > Title 17, to which the DMCA is an amendment. > > Many people believe that fair use is implied by the purpose given in the > Copyright Clause, or by other things. > > But the DMCA doesn't directly limit fair use; it allows private entities > to effectively limit fair use, and then sue if people evade their > limitations. I think this is an extremely important point that needs to be hammered home. The destruction of fair use by Chapter 12 is not a direct cause of 12 but a side-effect of the enforcement of 12. While 1201c1 says that no part of this section will infringe upon rights or defenses defined elsewhere in the Title, including fair use, it contradicts the rest of the law in practice. By allowing a copyright owner a technological "access control" method protected by law, even though "on paper" fair use is still protected it now becomes a gift from the copyright owner rather than a legal right. In other words, fair use goes away. I'm not sure Kaplan will get this; he seems to be of the breed that thinks he knows "enough", and isn't really interested in knowing more. But I do think that an appeals court will understand this. A lot of people - including myself - have been calling this a constitutional issue. Apart from the possible free speech implications (which would seem only to apply if it were source being sued rather than a Windows binary), where exactly are we getting this from? What constitutional references does Chapter 12 violate, exactly? I hate to admit it, but I'm not completely sure. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 14:43:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA07806 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:43:31 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA07783 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:43:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 11155 invoked by uid 502); 17 Feb 2000 19:47:17 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:47:17 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Time-Warner's comments on 1201(a)(1) Message-ID: <20000217144717.M6509@linuxpower.org> References: <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> <20000217100939.U4856@cty-alum.org> <200002171843.NAA07325@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002171843.NAA07325@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net>; from John Young on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 01:37:56PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 01:37:56PM -0500, John Young wrote: > Seth Schoen wrote: > > >"Fair use" is _not mentioned in the Constitution_; it's only defined by > >Title 17, to which the DMCA is an amendment. > > > >Many people believe that fair use is implied by the purpose given in the > >Copyright Clause, or by other things. > > > >But the DMCA doesn't directly limit fair use; it allows private entities > >to effectively limit fair use, and then sue if people evade their > >limitations. > > This is quite interesting, Seth. Would your see this right to sue an > overreaching of DMCA, that is, it grants a private party a right not > provided under the Constitution, and moreover, sets up an unfair > commercial advantage for the copyright holder? It might be hard to prove in court that the DMCA is an overreaching of the Constitution. I'd be more interested in demonstrating that it contradicts itself via 1201c1. > This is a truism of business schools, to be sure, rather a > that faith that free market is a supreme good -- for those > who operate it, lubricate it, ajudicate it, aggressively > apologize for it, prevaricating blithely, "but, surely, everyone > knows that stealing copyrighted material from creators > is good for the copyright industry, but stealing from the > anti-circumventioners is illegal, we know, we wrote > the law, and shall rewrite it again as necessary." -- > thus spake Jack Valenti, Harvard Business School > and Political Bag Man. What is your reference for this quote? Do you have a link to it? I'd be very curious where exactly Valenti said this. This seems awfully strong to have been said in public. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 14:48:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA10694 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:48:07 -0500 Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA10690 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:47:57 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11818 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:48:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08734 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:37:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:15:23 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 3:29 PM -0800 2/16/2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: >--- "Arnold G. Reinhold" wrote: > >> [...] But there is another class with deep interest: >> investors. All of the plaintiffs are large, publicly traded >> companies. > >Not only do investors have an interest in the technical credibility of >the company, but so do it's business partners and employees, present >and future. Good point. In particular the real content creators: authors, recording artists, movie producers, actors and actresses, etc., have an interest in knowing if a particular copyright protection technology will actually protect their work. Those interests may differ from the interests of publishers. 1201 as Judge Kaplan interprets it, would censor technical discussion of the merits of competing schemes. His interpretation runs counter to the very interests he seeks to protect. The very existence of DeCSS is evidence of this. Created in secret, CSS falls far short of the level of protection that was feasible at the time, even under the BXA export guidelines. And an open debate might have earned a strong CSS a waver from BXA. ... > >I've said before that the DMCA makes it illegal to demonstrate that the >emporer wears no clothes. Exactly. Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 15:00:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA15916 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:00:20 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA15913 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:00:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 11206 invoked by uid 502); 17 Feb 2000 20:04:07 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:04:07 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000217150407.N6509@linuxpower.org> References: <200002171804.NAA20298@gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002171804.NAA20298@gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu>; from Douglas Hudson on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 01:04:52PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 01:04:52PM -0600, Douglas Hudson wrote: > There seem to be two antitrust theories against the MPAA's use of access > controls. > > (1) Tying/Group Boycott. The MPAA is free to use access controls to protect > its copyright. That was the underlying intent of the DMCA. What is more > questionable is using its market power in the movie industry to control the > downstream market in DVD players. The MPAA might respond that the Noerr > doctrine protects this use; the best response would be that a group boycot > (which is effectively what this is, boycotting linux) is not forgiven because > the industry fears the boycotted party will violate IP laws. See Fashion > Originators Guild, Paramount. It would be extremely hard to use this as a defense in the current case, simply because the 2600/DeCSS case isn't about antitrust, per se. Also, to claim antitrust it pretty much needs to be shown that a commercial competitor is being unfairly damaged by the trust practices. If Netscape hadn't shown damage from the Windows monopoly, the DOJ would still be trying to find dirt on Microsoft rather than drafting breakup plans. If the law itself were being challenged, however, it could be argued that Section 12 effectively gives a copyright owner monopoly rights over their products rather than "protected" rights. > (2) Copyright misuse. The DMCA prevents circumvention of access controls. > The purpose of it was to protect copyright on digital media. The MPAA is > using access controls, all right, but they have used the controls to grant > protection -greater- than the copyright laws afford. > > The DMCA says nothing about allowing creators of access controls to make those > controls more (or less) restrictive than copyright law allows. Thus, the MPAA > appears to be using the DMCA as a vehicle to "overprotect" copyrighted > material. It says nothing about denying it either, besides a vague reference to not impacting rights or defenses defined elsewhere in Title 17. By granting by federal law a copyright owner the right to add teeth to his copyright, Section 12 effectively lets a copyright owner do pretty much whatever he wants. "Access control" is exactly that - access control. You either have control or you don't; if you have only circumstantial control, then you don't have control. The new Section 12 of Title 17 (known in it's presigned form as the DMCA) grants a copyright owner the right to control. Period, signed. I'm not sure how, in light of this law, it can be shown that the MPAA is abusing copyright law. Congress abused it by rewriting it this way. The MPAA is simply taking advantage of their "rights" under this particular wording. While Section 12 stands, the MPAA wins. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 16:13:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA16180 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:13:26 -0500 Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA16177 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:13:25 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21928 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:50:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15668 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:44:09 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38b019be.9152199@mail.tiac.net> References: <38b019be.9152199@mail.tiac.net> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:15:08 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] any need to show actual damages? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Just a thought from a lurking writer/consultant... > >Is there any need for the plaintiffs to show actual current damages? > >(Perhaps not to Judge Kaplan.) > >So much of the case seems to be based on what will happen >if the iceberg meets the keel. > >But DVD is a product on the shelves today, not some potential >technology. How can penalties be based on fable only? > All that has been decided in the New York DeCSS case is a request for an injunction. As I understand it, an injunction is not a penalty. Injunctions are based on the likelihood of future damages, the unlikelihood that those damages can be compensated monetarily. Arnold Reinhold (who is not a lawyer) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 16:16:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA17738 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:16:13 -0500 Received: from gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (smtp.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA17735 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:16:12 -0500 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25505 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from 128.164.127.252 (webmail.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.246]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01164; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:24:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002172124.QAA01164@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:16:34 -0500 From: dhudson To: dhudson , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002218 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >It would be extremely hard to use this as a defense in the current case, >simply because the 2600/DeCSS case isn't about antitrust, per se. > This is a countersuit, not a defense or an affirmative defense. >Also, to claim antitrust it pretty much needs to be shown that a commercial >competitor is being unfairly damaged by the trust practices. If Netscape >hadn't shown damage from the Windows monopoly, the DOJ would still be trying >to find dirt on Microsoft rather than drafting breakup plans. Is there an economic injury to -CONSUMERS-? Certaintly. Consumers are denied the full benefit of their licensed ownership of copyright materials. Competition is limited to those the MPAA "allows" to create DVD (and other later technology) players, despite the fact it has no -ENFORCEABLE- patent rights over the idea of CSS. (There is a CSS patent, but on first pass it seems defeatable.) This makes another side note -- we should set up a side discussion to collect prior art to poke holes in the CSS patent. I'll get more information on that tomorrow. >If the law itself were being challenged, however, it could be argued that >Section 12 effectively gives a copyright owner monopoly rights over their >products rather than "protected" rights. Simply put, the DMCA allows for access controls. The DMCA does not ban fair use. However, if an entity uses the DMCA to bar fair use, then they have gone beyond what the DMCA "allows", because the DMCA doesn't purport to allow or deny anything in regard to substantive copyright law. > >> (2) Copyright misuse. The DMCA prevents circumvention of access controls. >> The purpose of it was to protect copyright on digital media. The MPAA is >> using access controls, all right, but they have used the controls to grant >> protection -greater- than the copyright laws afford. >> >> The DMCA says nothing about allowing creators of access controls to make >> those controls more (or less) restrictive than copyright law allows. Thus, >> the MPAA appears to be using the DMCA as a vehicle to "overprotect" >> copyrighted material. > >It says nothing about denying it either, besides a vague reference to not >impacting rights or defenses defined elsewhere in Title 17. By granting by >federal law a copyright owner the right to add teeth to his copyright, Section >12 effectively lets a copyright owner do pretty much whatever he wants. That is what the MPAA is arguing -- that the DMCA allows them to do this to protect their copyright. But protecting your copyright is not the same as overextending your copyright using a law which doesn't explictly allow such an overextention. >"Access control" is exactly that - access control. You either have control >or you don't; if you have only circumstantial control, then you don't have >control. The new Section 12 of Title 17 (known in it's presigned form as >the DMCA) grants a copyright owner the right to control. Period, signed. Just as patent owners have a right to control their patent, those licensing rights are limited, and misuse can result in unenforceability. For the first time, the DMCA puts a new extreme "code licensing" power in the hands of copyright owners. I think there is a very strong argument that the same kind of limitations on patents apply to this sort of copyright misuse. You can use general law to misuse a patent, you can use general law to misuse a copyright. There is a valid point here. >I'm not sure how, in light of this law, it can be shown that the MPAA is >abusing copyright law. Congress abused it by rewriting it this way. The >MPAA is simply taking advantage of their "rights" under this particular >wording. They are using their right to access controls to block another's right. Let me get some case law on this... -Doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 16:22:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA20847 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:22:47 -0500 Received: from fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (fb01.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.19]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA20844 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:22:35 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihgv.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.70.31]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA23963 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:22:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002172122.QAA23963@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:17:01 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Time-Warner's comments on 1201(a)(1) In-Reply-To: <20000217144717.M6509@linuxpower.org> References: <200002171843.NAA07325@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net> <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> <20000217100939.U4856@cty-alum.org> <200002171843.NAA07325@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rob Warren wrote: >I'd be very curious where exactly Valenti said this. This seems >awfully strong to have been said in public. This was a pre-prepared statement handed out in Judge Kaplan's chambers immediately upon the end of the New York PI hearing on January 20 by MPAA's PR rep, Edelman Public Relations: Statement by Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America "Judge Kaplan's ruling represents a great victory for creative artists and consumers everywhere. I think this serves as a wake-up call to anyone who contemplates stealing intellectual property." A longer statement including this quote was posted on the MPAA Web site that evening: http://www.mpaa.org/Press/mpaawin2.htm Valenti and other members of the "copyright industry" testified in stronger statements before Congressional committees during hearings on the DMCA: http://cryptome.org/dmca/dmca-index.htm The "copyright industry" has its own statements and "anti-circumvention" policy reports at the Web sites linked to MPAA's at: http://www.iipa.com http://www.dvcc.com/cptwg Note that the copyright industry is composed of corporations which have purchased copyrights from creators or inheritors of creators' stake, or have contracts with content creators which require the creators to give up copyright, or have outright stolen creative materials from creators -- actions which are being contested in court by creative artists and inheritors, some of which are in the New York district of the MPAA suit: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov Search on National Geographic for a sample case of theft from creative artists. It is worth keeping in mind that unfair laws are enacted, and that occasionally they are oveturned. Merely quoting the status quo is a favorite of those who benefit from such unfairness. For those who suffer the unfairness, quoting the status quo is a call to arms. Valenti has led the theft of creative property in the movie industry for several decades. Consultation with those who have suffered unfair treatment by the studios is a searing experience, and now and then a movie gets made about it, customarily by the indies who have horrific tales to tell about anti-circumvention practices from the HUAC hearings of the 50s to the hiring and firing practices of the "Creative Artists"-like agencies of today. Note also what "United Artists" has become since it was founded by Charles Chaplin and other breakaway artists who could no endure the Valentis of their day. To be sure, Chaplin was run out of the country by the studios and complicit government officials, but, wondrously, he was able to create even greater work in far superior intellectual landscapes not hegemoned by, now what are they called, ah, yes, Racketeer Influenced Criminal Organizations. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 16:29:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA25864 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:29:41 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA25835 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:29:38 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id NAA32671 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:29:21 -0800 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:29:21 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from reinhold@world.std.com on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 11:15:23AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Arnold G. Reinhold writes: > At 3:29 PM -0800 2/16/2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > >Not only do investors have an interest in the technical credibility of > >the company, but so do it's business partners and employees, present > >and future. > > Good point. In particular the real content creators: authors, > recording artists, movie producers, actors and actresses, etc., have > an interest in knowing if a particular copyright protection > technology will actually protect their work. Those interests may > differ from the interests of publishers. 1201 as Judge Kaplan > interprets it, would censor technical discussion of the merits of > competing schemes. His interpretation runs counter to the very > interests he seeks to protect. The very existence of DeCSS is > evidence of this. Created in secret, CSS falls far short of the level > of protection that was feasible at the time, even under the BXA > export guidelines. And an open debate might have earned a strong CSS > a waver from BXA. However, as David Wagner has pointed out, the industry wanted to have a software player that would run on end-users' general purpose computers. Because of that goal, they automatically lose any hope of having a secure system. The specific goal the industry was trying to achieve is impossible. Therefore, they decided that they would simply need to get a law passed which declared that they had achieved it. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 17:11:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA15830 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:11:39 -0500 Received: from web503.mail.yahoo.com (web503.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.70]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA15826 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:11:36 -0500 Received: (qmail 11821 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Feb 2000 22:11:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20000217221154.11820.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web503.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:11:54 PST Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:11:54 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > It would be extremely hard to use this as a defense in the current > case, simply because the 2600/DeCSS case isn't about antitrust, per > se. Sure it is. In an attempt to fight price-fixing and anti-competitive tying of playback authorization to players, consumers developed and distributed tools to allow non-infringing access. 1201(a)(3,4) gives an ad hoc exception-making power to the Librarian of Congress. Anti-competitive forces are certainly within appropriate considerations for this official. If the judge insists on pre-empting the Librarian's determinations, then all things relevent to the Librarian should be relevant to the judge. > Also, to claim antitrust it pretty much needs to be shown that a > commercial competitor is being unfairly damaged by the trust practices. Price-fixing and tying are prohibited under the Sherman act for consumer protection. These are not as hard to prove as monopoly prohibitions. > "Access control" is exactly that - access control. You either have > control or you don't; if you have only circumstantial control, then you > don't have control. The new Section 12 of Title 17 (known in it's > presigned form as the DMCA) grants a copyright owner the right to > control. Period, signed. Uh, no. It merely prohibits under the clause at issue, 1201(a)(2) , trafficking in access circumvention technology, and even then with a long list of qualifcations and exceptions. DeCSS is not such technology as defined in 1201(a)(3)(A) for many, many reasons. Short summary: it's speech not technology, it's not functional until compiled, access using DeCSS is authorized by the DVD copyrights, it qualifies for the reverse engineering exception, the Librarian of Congress may declare it non-infringing. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 19:27:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA23807 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:27:09 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA23801 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:27:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 12187 invoked by uid 502); 18 Feb 2000 00:30:51 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:30:51 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000217193051.A11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000217221154.11820.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000217221154.11820.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 02:11:54PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 02:11:54PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > It would be extremely hard to use this as a defense in the current > > case, simply because the 2600/DeCSS case isn't about antitrust, per > > se. > > Sure it is. In an attempt to fight price-fixing and anti-competitive > tying of playback authorization to players, consumers developed and > distributed tools to allow non-infringing access. 1201(a)(3,4) gives an > ad hoc exception-making power to the Librarian of Congress. > Anti-competitive forces are certainly within appropriate considerations > for this official. If the judge insists on pre-empting the Librarian's > determinations, then all things relevent to the Librarian should be > relevant to the judge. Wow. I didn't realize the Librarian had made a determination in this case. That was quick. I don't suppose you have a URL to back up that assertion? If the Librarian has already determined that DeCSS falls under a copyright exemption, why are we even bothering here? The case is over. > > > "Access control" is exactly that - access control. You either have > > control or you don't; if you have only circumstantial control, then > you > > don't have control. The new Section 12 of Title 17 (known in it's > > presigned form as the DMCA) grants a copyright owner the right to > > control. Period, signed. > > Uh, no. It merely prohibits under the clause at issue, 1201(a)(2) , > trafficking in access circumvention technology, and even then with a > long list of qualifcations and exceptions. It also prohibits manufacture of said technology. Next year, when the rest of the DMCA takes effect, the act of circumvention itself becomes illegal. It's also extremely questionable that any of those exemptions apply in this particular case, without twisting and deforming the facts to make them fit. If you'd like me to attack them point for point, I will. The effective outcome of 1201 is to give the copyright owner complete control over their property. > DeCSS is not such technology > as defined in 1201(a)(3)(A) for many, many reasons. Short summary: it's > speech not technology, This has not been decided in court, and will be tough to do so. Read the New York hearing transcript. The MPAA is going after the trafficking of the DeCSS binary itself - not necessarily the css-auth source or discussion of the algorithm. Bernstein vs. DOJ wouldn't necessarily apply in this case, since we're not talking about distributing source code but a technological device. Good luck trying to prove that an executable Windows binary constitutes free speech and not technology. If this isn't technology, then what exactly is? > it's not functional until compiled, Which is untrue, since the current legal action in New York is being applied to the DeCSS Windows binary and not the css-auth source code. I assure you, the program that the MPAA is prosecuting requires no special compilation to use. It consists of an EXE file, two DLL's and a README. If you go back and read the transcript, you will notice that the MPAA lawyers essentially say that what they are trying to stop is the distribution of a program that allows anyone to simply run it, press two dialog box buttons and decrypt a DVD. They're after the binary. Here's what Leon P. Gold, attorney for the MPAA, told Judge Kaplan in New York: "We're not seeking any injunction against any of those expressions or statements of opinion and expression of rights. We're only trying to take out of these websites the thing that says DeCSS that you put your mouse on and click it twice and you have circumvented the protective device on our copyrighted films. That's all we seek from you, both in the case of posting and also in the case of the linking that I described to your Honor before." Page 14, lines 14 through 21, New York hearing transcript. > access using > DeCSS is authorized by the DVD copyrights, It is?? Then why are we bothering with a court case? By all means, show me where in the "DVD copyright" it says that the content may be accessed using technologies other than those provided for under the DVD Forum license. The most you can argue here is that the playback issue isn't even addressed publicly on DVD packages and therefore constitutes consumer fraud. > it qualifies for the reverse > engineering exception, It does?? Funny, I seem to recall that "reverse engineering for reasons of system interoperability" directly applies to computer software - not to copyrighted media. The reverse-engineering exception makes more sense if Linux programmers had hacked the Xing player in order to make the Xing player work with Linux. This ain't what happened. I could be wrong here - quote 1201 and show me I am. > the Librarian of Congress may declare it > non-infringing. And the President may just pardon everyone involved and declare the next week National Open Source Week. Until the Librarian *does* declare it non-infringing, this is a non-point. Don't get me wrong here. At one time or other over the last two months I've argued each one of these points and believed in them. Unfortunately, trying to pretend that the MPAA doesn't have a case is stupidity and arrogance. They do have a case - they have a strong one. The reason they have a strong one is because: 1. They knew CSS would be broken. 2. They essentially wrote this law to use when CSS was broken. 3. They've been practice-swinging this legal bat for three years, waiting for the day it was time to step up to the plate. Coming off with a "oh, it's so obvious this case is bogus, anyone with half a brain can see that" attitude only ensures that we lose. That sort of arrogance gets people hurt. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 19:48:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA31759 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:48:21 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA31740 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:48:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 12203 invoked by uid 502); 18 Feb 2000 00:51:48 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:51:48 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Time-Warner's comments on 1201(a)(1) Message-ID: <20000217195148.B11768@linuxpower.org> References: <200002171843.NAA07325@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net> <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> <20000217124853.C10572@nacs.net> <20000217100939.U4856@cty-alum.org> <200002171843.NAA07325@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net> <20000217144717.M6509@linuxpower.org> <200002172122.QAA23963@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002172122.QAA23963@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net>; from John Young on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 04:17:01PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 04:17:01PM -0500, John Young wrote: > Rob Warren wrote: > > >I'd be very curious where exactly Valenti said this. This seems > >awfully strong to have been said in public. > > This was a pre-prepared statement handed out in Judge Kaplan's > chambers immediately upon the end of the New York PI hearing > on January 20 by MPAA's PR rep, Edelman Public Relations: > > Statement by Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive Officer > of the Motion Picture Association of America > > "Judge Kaplan's ruling represents a great victory for creative artists > and consumers everywhere. I think this serves as a wake-up call > to anyone who contemplates stealing intellectual property." > > A longer statement including this quote was posted on the MPAA > Web site that evening: > > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/mpaawin2.htm Unfortunately, that statement doesn't include the original quote you attributed to Valenti. I don't see the words "we wrote the law, and shall rewrite it again as necessary" anywhere in this. > > Valenti and other members of the "copyright industry" testified in stronger > statements before Congressional committees during hearings on the > DMCA: > > http://cryptome.org/dmca/dmca-index.htm Is the quote here? You've collected a great deal of documents; that's commendable - thank you. Could you please tell us in which one Valenti says "we wrote the law, and shall rewrite it again as necessary"? > The "copyright industry" has its own statements and "anti-circumvention" > policy reports at the Web sites linked to MPAA's at: > > http://www.iipa.com > > http://www.dvcc.com/cptwg Hmm. I still can't seem to find it; I must be missing something. Where on these two pages are the words "we wrote the law, and shall rewrite it again as necessary", attributed to Jack Valenti? I tend to get confused easily and all these links are certainly confusing, so I'm obviously missing something. Perhaps you can state specifically where this quotation is. > > Note that the copyright industry is composed of corporations which > have purchased copyrights from creators or inheritors of creators' > stake, or have contracts with content creators which require the > creators to give up copyright, or have outright stolen creative > materials from creators -- actions which are being contested in > court by creative artists and inheritors, some of which are in the > New York district of the MPAA suit: > > http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov You have *got* to be on a different Internet than I am. I've looked all over this page and you know what? I just can't find the words "we wrote the law, and shall rewrite it again as necessary" anywhere on it. It's frustrating, because I know you wouldn't have just made it up out of thin air to win emotional points. After all, attributing defaming misquotes to people can legally be considered libel. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 19:53:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01473 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:53:43 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA01420 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:53:28 -0500 Received: from [38.32.9.216] (helo=ip216.bedford.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12Lbfj-0002ol-00; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:53:32 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] any need to show actual damages? Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:52:22 GMT Message-ID: <38b48e35.38971649@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000217175035.8308.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000217175035.8308.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id TAA01471 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:50:35 -0800 (PST), Bryan wrote: >To my knowledge no one has report a single incident of DeCSS enabled >DVD pirating. I think there is a strong case to be made that an open >source player for Linux and others would have a positive affect on DVD sales. Exactly. We know it really opens up a whole other (technically-sophisticated, enthusiastic) market. But the MPAA and the judge imply that the combination of broadband plus DeCSS will undo Hollywood's profits. All these elements exist today in lesser amounts: DVD, broadband, and DeCSS. In five years, more people will have access to each, but not everyone. If they can't show any actual damages now--when? Along these lines-- Dana Parker brings up some conflicts between DMCA and the 1984 Betamax decision in the current EMedia magazine-- Copy This Column: The Truth About DeCSS http://www.emediapro.net/EM2000/standard2.html (I hope this is useful to the cause. I'm way too right-brained to think very logically about this stuff.) Ron Gustavson www.tiac.net/users/rongus __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 20:01:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA05040 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:01:10 -0500 Received: from fb04.eng00.mindspring.net (fb04.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.200.170]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA05037 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:01:09 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihgv.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.70.31]) by fb04.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA09973 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:01:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002180101.UAA09973@fb04.eng00.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:55:35 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] CCIA Comments on DMCA In-Reply-To: <20000217221154.11820.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent to the Copyright Office today: DMCA Comments by Computers & Communications Industry Association [Excerpt from: http://cryptome.org/dmca-ccia.htm] "The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) strongly supported ratification and implementation of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, both of which were intended to update the Berne Copyright Convention to improve protections for digital works such as computer software and compact disks. The WIPO Copyright Treaty affirms that computer programs and other digital works are due full copyright protection under the Berne Convention. The WIPO treaty also clarifies transmission rights for copyrighted works in digital, electronic formats, and requires "adequate and effective" remedies to protect against the circumvention of anti-copying technologies and alteration or removal of electronic rights management information. Following the adoption of the WIPO treaties at the 1996 Diplomatic Conference, the Administration introduced implementing legislation in the 105th Congress. However, these bills, S. 1121 and H.R. 2281, went beyond the revisions necessary to conform American law to our treaty obligations and conferred broad new rights on the owners of copyrighted material. As introduced, these bills would have made it illegal for competitors to analyze operating systems or software platforms for the purpose of creating interoperable products. Computer scientists conducting encryption research and security testing would have also been in danger of running afoul of the law. In addition, online service providers could have been subject to broad liability for the actions of others engaging in copyright piracy utilizing their services, regardless of whether the service provider played any role or had any knowledge of such activity. Working on behalf of its members, CCIA was actively involved throughout consideration of this legislation (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) . In addition to working to limit the legislation's impact on the broad issues of service providers' liability and fair use, CCIA and other interested parties were able to preserve the practice of reverse engineering for interoperability purposes. CCIA also spearheaded the effort leading to the exceptions for encryption research and security testing. We believed then, and continue to believe, that this language is essential to maintaining innovation and competition in the information technology industry. We also cautioned that the need for additional exceptions -- based on unforeseen developments and innovation in technology -- would almost certainly arise. As we anticipated, since the enactment of the DMCA by Congress the progress of technology has evinced the need for additional exceptions to the circumvention prohibitions in the statute. Legitimate efforts to deliver new and innovative products to the market and to consumers have been thwarted or have been challenged as violations of the Copyright Act as amended by the DMCA." -- Jason Mahler Vice President and General Counsel Computer & Communications Industry Association jmahler@ccianet.org Computer & Communications Industry Association members: Amdahl Corporation AT&T Corporation Bell Atlantic Corporation Block Financial Corporation CAI/SISCoCerebellum Software Commercial Data Servers, Inc. CommonRoad Corporation Datum, Inc. Entegrity Solutions Corporation Fujitsu Limited Giga Information Group Government Sales Consultants, Inc. Hitachi Data Systems, Inc. Intuit, Inc. MERANTNet Com Solutions International, Inc. NOKIA, Inc. Nortel Networks NTT America, Inc. Okidata Oracle Corporation Sun Microsystems, Inc. Tantivy Communications, Inc. Telesciences, Inc. Sabre Inc. TSI International Software, Ltd. VeriSign, Inc. Viatel, Inc. ViON Corporation Yahoo! Inc. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 20:19:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA12044 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:19:32 -0500 Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA12041 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:19:31 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15358 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:46:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15422 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:39:54 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:39:38 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Arnold G. Reinhold writes: > >> At 3:29 PM -0800 2/16/2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: >> > >> >Not only do investors have an interest in the technical credibility of >> >the company, but so do it's business partners and employees, present >> >and future. >> >> Good point. In particular the real content creators: authors, >> recording artists, movie producers, actors and actresses, etc., have >> an interest in knowing if a particular copyright protection >> technology will actually protect their work. Those interests may >> differ from the interests of publishers. 1201 as Judge Kaplan >> interprets it, would censor technical discussion of the merits of >> competing schemes. His interpretation runs counter to the very >> interests he seeks to protect. The very existence of DeCSS is >> evidence of this. Created in secret, CSS falls far short of the level >> of protection that was feasible at the time, even under the BXA >> export guidelines. And an open debate might have earned a strong CSS >> a waver from BXA. > >However, as David Wagner has pointed out, the industry wanted to have a >software player that would run on end-users' general purpose computers. >Because of that goal, they automatically lose any hope of having a >secure system. But that was a business decision that the industry made. I am not sure they were fully aware of the trade off. Had there been open debate, they might have chosen to have movie DVDs only viewable using tamper-resistant players. Or they might have worked with the computer industry to make it harder to defeat CSS, perhaps having DVD drives produce analog output that is mixed with the computers video. Or content owners might have refused to release their work in DVD format. Whatever. David Wagner's input might have lead to a different result and it might influence future decisions. Now a paper by David Wagner is much less likely to get attention from the participants than the same paper plus the DeCSS source code. (Just like Michael Weiner's paper DES cracker has less effect than EFF realization.) All this just demonstrate the importance of the open uncensored discussion, including source code speech, that the industry wants to silence using 1201. Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 20:19:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA12103 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:19:59 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA12099 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:19:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 12296 invoked by uid 502); 18 Feb 2000 01:23:45 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:23:45 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org>; from Seth David Schoen on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 01:29:21PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 01:29:21PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > The specific goal the industry was trying to achieve is impossible. > Therefore, they decided that they would simply need to get a law passed > which declared that they had achieved it. Ehhh... close but no burrito. The specific goal the industry was trying to achieve in 1996-1998 was to find some method of preventing digital video from being replicated to the point that the effective dollar value of a digitally-recorded film was zero due to market flooding. This wasn't technically impossible - it probably could have been accomplished with strong encryption. They couldn't use strong encryption because of U.S. export laws, so they decided to lobby for new laws making the breaking of access control illegal. Those laws became the DMCA - now Section 12 of Title 17. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 20:30:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA17999 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:30:01 -0500 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA17996 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:30:01 -0500 Received: from alaptop.hotwired.com ([12.78.117.89]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <20000218013010.DPIP2478@alaptop.hotwired.com> for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 01:30:10 +0000 Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000217202647.02430d10@pop.webcom.com> X-Sender: y2kc@pop.webcom.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:28:37 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CCIA Comments on DMCA In-Reply-To: <200002180101.UAA09973@fb04.eng00.mindspring.net> References: <20000217221154.11820.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu CCIA has always been better than most other DC based groups on this. I remember stopping by their offices to talk WIPO in '96. Jason, whose name is below, is a former Hill guy. But do not think for a moment that CCIA necessarily represents the views of the individual companies. In the end, trade associations only speak for themselves. -Declan At 19:55 2/17/2000 -0500, John Young wrote: >Sent to the Copyright Office today: > >DMCA Comments by Computers & Communications Industry >Association > >[Excerpt from: http://cryptome.org/dmca-ccia.htm] > >"The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) >strongly supported ratification and implementation of the World >Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and >the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, both of which >were intended to update the Berne Copyright Convention to >improve protections for digital works such as computer software >and compact disks. > >The WIPO Copyright Treaty affirms that computer programs and >other digital works are due full copyright protection under the >Berne Convention. The WIPO treaty also clarifies transmission >rights for copyrighted works in digital, electronic formats, and >requires "adequate and effective" remedies to protect against >the circumvention of anti-copying technologies and alteration >or removal of electronic rights management information. > >Following the adoption of the WIPO treaties at the 1996 Diplomatic >Conference, the Administration introduced implementing legislation >in the 105th Congress. However, these bills, S. 1121 and H.R. 2281, >went beyond the revisions necessary to conform American law to >our treaty obligations and conferred broad new rights on the owners >of copyrighted material. As introduced, these bills would have made >it illegal for competitors to analyze operating systems or software >platforms for the purpose of creating interoperable products. > >Computer scientists conducting encryption research and security >testing would have also been in danger of running afoul of the law. >In addition, online service providers could have been subject to >broad liability for the actions of others engaging in copyright piracy >utilizing their services, regardless of whether the service provider >played any role or had any knowledge of such activity. > >Working on behalf of its members, CCIA was actively involved >throughout consideration of this legislation (the Digital Millennium >Copyright Act) . In addition to working to limit the legislation's >impact on the broad issues of service providers' liability and fair >use, CCIA and other interested parties were able to preserve >the practice of reverse engineering for interoperability purposes. > >CCIA also spearheaded the effort leading to the exceptions for >encryption research and security testing. We believed then, >and continue to believe, that this language is essential to >maintaining innovation and competition in the information >technology industry. We also cautioned that the need for >additional exceptions -- based on unforeseen developments >and innovation in technology -- would almost certainly arise. > >As we anticipated, since the enactment of the DMCA by >Congress the progress of technology has evinced the need >for additional exceptions to the circumvention prohibitions in >the statute. Legitimate efforts to deliver new and innovative >products to the market and to consumers have been thwarted >or have been challenged as violations of the Copyright Act as >amended by the DMCA." > > >-- Jason Mahler >Vice President and General Counsel >Computer & Communications Industry Association >jmahler@ccianet.org > >Computer & Communications Industry Association members: > >Amdahl Corporation >AT&T Corporation >Bell Atlantic Corporation >Block Financial Corporation >CAI/SISCoCerebellum Software >Commercial Data Servers, Inc. >CommonRoad Corporation >Datum, Inc. >Entegrity Solutions Corporation >Fujitsu Limited >Giga Information Group >Government Sales Consultants, Inc. >Hitachi Data Systems, Inc. >Intuit, Inc. >MERANTNet >Com Solutions International, Inc. >NOKIA, Inc. >Nortel Networks >NTT America, Inc. >Okidata >Oracle Corporation >Sun Microsystems, Inc. >Tantivy Communications, Inc. >Telesciences, Inc. >Sabre Inc. >TSI International Software, Ltd. >VeriSign, Inc. >Viatel, Inc. >ViON Corporation >Yahoo! Inc. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 20:39:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21956 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:39:29 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA21912 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:39:24 -0500 Received: (qmail 12336 invoked by uid 502); 18 Feb 2000 01:42:47 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:42:47 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] any need to show actual damages? Message-ID: <20000217204247.F11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000217175035.8308.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <38b48e35.38971649@mail.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38b48e35.38971649@mail.tiac.net>; from Ron Gustavson on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:52:22AM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:52:22AM +0000, Ron Gustavson wrote: > > Along these lines-- > Dana Parker brings up some conflicts between DMCA and the > 1984 Betamax decision in the current EMedia magazine-- > Copy This Column: The Truth About DeCSS > http://www.emediapro.net/EM2000/standard2.html Dana Parker also wrote an interesting article back in 1996 for Tape/Disc Business Magazine called "DVD Copy Protection: An Agreement At Last?: Protecting Intellectual Property Rights In The Age Of Technology" in which the powers that were working to standardize DVD essentially admit that CSS will be simple to break and that new laws will have to be lobbied for to deal with that problem. It's an interesting insight on the history of this whole mess. http://www.kipinet.com/tdb/tdb_oct96/feat_protection.html Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 20:49:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA24724 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:49:08 -0500 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA24721 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:49:07 -0500 Received: from alaptop.hotwired.com ([12.78.117.89]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <20000218014902.DZGV2478@alaptop.hotwired.com> for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 01:49:02 +0000 Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000217204613.0244b710@pop.webcom.com> X-Sender: y2kc@pop.webcom.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:47:18 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision In-Reply-To: <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 20:23 2/17/2000 -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >They couldn't use strong encryption because of U.S. export laws, I know this is conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's right. I believe there was an exception in the old regs. Please cite the exact portion of the old regs (available at eff.org, epic.org) that prohibits what you say it does. -Declan From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 20:51:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA25543 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:51:05 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA25536 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:51:04 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id RAA00284 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:50:53 -0800 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:50:53 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 08:23:45PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 01:29:21PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > > The specific goal the industry was trying to achieve is impossible. > > Therefore, they decided that they would simply need to get a law passed > > which declared that they had achieved it. > > Ehhh... close but no burrito. The specific goal the industry was trying > to achieve in 1996-1998 was to find some method of preventing digital > video from being replicated to the point that the effective dollar value > of a digitally-recorded film was zero due to market flooding. This > wasn't technically impossible - it probably could have been accomplished with > strong encryption. Not in software players. No matter what kind of encryption you put in a software player, it can be reverse-engineered. The industry could have put a 17 GB strongly random OTP in there, and someone with a debugger or decompiler could pull it right back out again. > They couldn't use strong encryption because of U.S. export laws, so they > decided to lobby for new laws making the breaking of access control > illegal. Those laws became the DMCA - now Section 12 of Title 17. Encryption in hardware players, where it _might_ survive reverse-engineering attempts, would almost certainly have been exportable. The US government regularly allowed many products containing strong cryptography to be exported if the products could not be readily adapted to provide confidentiality. For instance, products which used cryptography only for authentication or some kinds of access control were often exportable. I could try to look up some of the specific examples, although they're not that interesting now, except for historical perspective. The DNSSEC issue is a recent controversy related to that policy; it now seems moot because of the recent export policy changes. Mr. Valenti's argument about stronger encryption not having been exportable seems disingenuous (although he could be unaware of the technical details). Stronger encryption would have been irrelevant in software players and probably exportable in hardware players. It would just have been more expensive. The industry was, from the point of view supporting technological access controls, being lazy or cutting corners, and then trying to rely on legal advocacy to produce a world in which people were legally obliged to act as though it had succeeded. As Judge Kaplan memorably said, they built a moat filled with litigators rather than alligators. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 21:25:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA10184 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:25:16 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA09888 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:24:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 12473 invoked by uid 502); 18 Feb 2000 02:28:22 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:28:21 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000217212821.G11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <4.3.0.20000217204613.0244b710@pop.webcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <4.3.0.20000217204613.0244b710@pop.webcom.com>; from Declan McCullagh on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 08:47:18PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 08:47:18PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > At 20:23 2/17/2000 -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >They couldn't use strong encryption because of U.S. export laws, > > I know this is conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's right. I believe > there was an exception in the old regs. > > Please cite the exact portion of the old regs (available at eff.org, > epic.org) that prohibits what you say it does. Okay; let me rephrase. They intentionally chose a weak encryption scheme in order to not have to delay the rollout of DVD technology while waiting for a government decision as to whether or not their "encryption" system legally constituted a weapon, as strong encryption was considered by the United States in 1996. I will admit, this is mainly my opinion from the evidence I've read so far. It could be mistaken; I wasn't there. At any rate, there was most certainly the concern on the part of the companies involved (particular Matshusita) that the new scrambling method would run afoul of the U.S. export regs. The trade magazine articles from the time that I've read seem to substantiate this. Whether or not CSS would have actually incurred the wrath of government is basically immaterial here; it was a business decision made out of concern that the approval process would take too long, impacting the financial feasibility of DVD. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 21:29:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA11071 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:29:04 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA11063 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:29:02 -0500 Received: from [38.32.9.216] (helo=ip216.bedford.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12LdAc-0004Pq-00; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:29:26 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:28:17 GMT Message-ID: <38b6ad92.47002263@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> In-Reply-To: <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id VAA11064 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:50:53 -0800, Seth wrote: >Encryption in hardware players, where it _might_ survive reverse-engineering >attempts, would almost certainly have been exportable. In the case of hardware players, it would mostly need to be importable (excepting I guess Fisher, Kenwood, Thomson, and Zenith.) __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 21:36:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA14003 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:36:36 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA13999 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:36:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 26200 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Feb 2000 02:36:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20000218023658.26199.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:36:58 PST Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:36:58 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a response to the points under 1) of the Devils Advocate response submitted by dhudson on the message board: http://eon.law.harvard.edu/HyperNews/get3/opendvd/4.html? 1)A) 1201(a)(3)(A) fails > DMCA bars breaking an ACCESS CIRCUMVENTION SCHEME. The MPAA will argue > that the license to "view" is not a license to break CSS and decidedly > not a license to distribute DeCSS. Yes, I'm claiming there is no circumvention by the definition in 1201(a)(3)(A), since the result of compiling DeCSS and then using the executible is within the "view" copyright authority granted. You do not need a licence to "break CSS" or to "distribute DeCSS". These are covered under "right to liberty" unless they violate the law. I note that the DVD copyright does NOT state that you may descrambe using authorized players, so my arguement holds or you have no access, period. 1)B) 1201(a)(2)(A) fails > Again, it doesn't seem to matter what the intent is. The DCMA bars > distribution of anything which (and as of October, the act of) > defeating access controls to copyrighted content. If you want to argue that 1201(a)(2)(A) holds, please do so. In this part it does 'seem to matter' if it's "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumvention". 1)C) 1201(a)(2)(B) fails > The NET act makes non-commercial use subject to liability. [...] I assume since you refer to the 'NET' act and not section 1201(a)(2)(B) that you have nothing to rebut that 1201(a)(2)(B) fails. 1)E)i) "Fair Use" access implicitly granted by "first sale" > Except it's not clear whether fair use is CONSTITUTIONALLY required. Well, I'm asserting that it is under the "progress of science and arts" part" part of the copyright power, and under the 1st Amendment, and as a historical right protected by the 9th Amendment. 1)E)ii) Congress did not intend to overturn "fair use" with the DMCA > [...] Violations of 1201 itself are not copyright infringement, but a > de novo statutory offense. [...] copyright infringement defenses [d]o > not apply to the DMCA. My first arguement is that if the copying would be "fair use" then you fail the "without authority" part of the circumvention test. Fair use grants authority to use. Secondly, to the extent that this bill creates new statutory offenses, it does so under the limited enumerated powers of the Constitution. If the statute regulates something besides copyright infringment then it must do some under some identifiable power other than the copyright clause and then it has nothing to "balance" against the first amendment freedom of speach. 1)F) Source Code not cover by 1201(a)(2) > Textual arguments are good, but this is a weak one. Source code can > certainly be a component of technology or a device, and DeCSS object > code is almost certainly a device within the scope of congress' > intent. Ummm, No. The entire history of commercial software is filled with source-code-less executables. DeCSS source code, once compiled, isn't part of the executable. As such, it is not 'a component' of the technology. The recipe is not a component of the cake. Also, no one is accused of distributing DeCSS object code. Distributing LSD is illegal, distributing the article on LSD synthesis is not. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 21:43:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA18483 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:43:40 -0500 Received: from gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (smtp.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA18480 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:43:38 -0500 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00483 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from 128.164.127.252 (webmail.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.246]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11387; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:52:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002180252.VAA11387@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:44:01 -0500 From: dhudson To: dhudson , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002218 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Even if LOC grants the exception it only applies to the ACT of circumvention under the part of the DMCA that becomes effective in October 2000. The LOC has no power over the distribution ban. This is another difficulty in the DMCA -- it is 2 sections. In other words, 1201(a)(3)and(4) only allows the LOC to make an exception for -USE- of access control devices. In an act of legislative brilliance, the LOC's rulemaking does not effect the per se ban on distribution or creation of circumvention technology. > Anti-competitive forces are certainly within appropriate considerations > for this official. If the judge insists on pre-empting the Librarian's > determinations, then all things relevent to the Librarian should be > relevant to the judge. In a perfect world. This is the SDNY, where the judges consider themsleves copyright experts, and there is a fair amount of, well, "regulatory capture". > > Also, to claim antitrust it pretty much needs to be shown that a > > commercial competitor is being unfairly damaged by the trust > practices. > > Price-fixing and tying are prohibited under the Sherman act for > consumer protection. These are not as hard to prove as monopoly > prohibitions. Price-fixing isn't really at issue here (yet). Tying, after Jefferson Parish, still requires a showing of market power (easy for MPAA), and an actual antitrust injury. I think an actual economic injury to both consumers and competitors can be shown here. > > "Access control" is exactly that - access control. You either have > > control or you don't; if you have only circumstantial control, then > you > > don't have control. The new Section 12 of Title 17 (known in it's > > presigned form as the DMCA) grants a copyright owner the right to > > control. Period, signed. > > Uh, no. It merely prohibits under the clause at issue, 1201(a)(2) , > trafficking in access circumvention technology, and even then with a > long list of qualifcations and exceptions. DeCSS is not such technology > as defined in 1201(a)(3)(A) for many, many reasons. Short summary: it's > speech not technology, it's not functional until compiled, access using > DeCSS is authorized by the DVD copyrights, it qualifies for the reverse > engineering exception, the Librarian of Congress may declare it > non-infringing. Except the DeCSS executable, object code, etc. is being distributed too. That is "technology" within 1201. The hurdles to jump over, not really announced anywhere, are (1) whether the DMCA is absolute and (a) allowed under copyright clause (Art. I s 8 cl. 8) (b) allowed under commerce clause (c) allowed under nec & prop clause (2) if allowed, is the DMCA (a) limited by the copyright statute (b) limited by the copyright clause (Art. I s 8 cl. 8) (c) limited by the first amendment (3) If allowed and not limited, is DeCSS covered by the DMCA (a) does DeCSS allow circumvention of access controls (yes) (b) does DeCSS fall into an express exception (i.e. rev. eng) (c) UNANSWERED QUESTION: If an access control system prohibits lawful access, does a system created expressly to allow that lawful access still violate the DMCA? Additionally, (A) Is the MPAA misusing their copyrights by extending their copyright via CSS, using the DMCA to protect copyright conduct neither expressly nor impliedly permitted under the copyright act or DMCA, and conduct which otherwise would likely constitute copyright misuse analogous to an antitrust violation? (B) By tying CSS licenses without proper IP support (requires confirmation that CSS patent is invalid--likely since they are not using it in the suit) is the MPAA illegally tying a downstream market for DVD players to their monopoly power market (movies)? By the way, please leave sarcasm aside. This isn't an ego contest. I posited the two antitrust theories as a real counterissue against the MPAA. Tying & copyright misuse are both valid theories to explore, and I'll write up a legal memorandum over the weekend to explain the position. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 21:51:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA24959 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:51:49 -0500 Received: from fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (fb01.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.19]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA24955 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:51:46 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihf4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.69.228]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA28900 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:52:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002180252.VAA28900@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:46:05 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision In-Reply-To: <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> References: <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There's chart showing the relation of legal and technological protection on the Digital Transmission Licensing Adminitrator (DTLA) site, where a new generation of digital protection is in the works -- the "5C" Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP) specification -- which shows that as technological protection increases the need for legal protection decreases, and vice versa, as technological protection decreases the need for legal protection increases: It shows that if strong crypto is used the need for draconian laws will be reduced. To be sure, the claim is made by towering cryptographers not moatish litigators. http://www.dtcp.com/dtcp_tut.pdf The 5C DTCP spec (note claims of being hacker tested and based non-secret algorithm): http://www.dtcp.com/spec.html DTCP Specification To allow for protected transmission of copy-protected material between digital devices like PC's, DVD Players, and Digital TV's, five companies -- Hitachi, Intel, Matsushita (MEI), Sony and Toshiba have prepared the "5C" Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP) specification. The DTCP specification defines a cryptographic protocol for protecting audio/video entertainment content from illegal copying, intercepting and tampering as it traverses high performance digital buses, such as the IEEE 1394 standard. Only legitimate entertainment content delivered to a source device via another approved copy protection system (such as the DVD Content Scrambling System) will be protected by this copy protection system. The DTCP specification relies on strong cryptographic technologies to provide flexible and robust copy protection across digital buses. These cryptographic techniques have evolved over the past 20 years to serve critical military, governmental and commercial applications. These techniques have been thoroughly evaluated by hackers and by legitimate cryptographic experts and have proven their ability to withstand attack. The cryptographic stability of the system is derived from the proven strength of the underlying technologies, rather than merely how well a certain algorithm can be kept secret. ----- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 21:53:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA25956 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:53:34 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA25835 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:53:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 12503 invoked by uid 502); 18 Feb 2000 02:57:11 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:57:10 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org>; from Seth David Schoen on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 05:50:53PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 05:50:53PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 01:29:21PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > > > > The specific goal the industry was trying to achieve is impossible. > > > Therefore, they decided that they would simply need to get a law passed > > > which declared that they had achieved it. > > > > Ehhh... close but no burrito. The specific goal the industry was trying > > to achieve in 1996-1998 was to find some method of preventing digital > > video from being replicated to the point that the effective dollar value > > of a digitally-recorded film was zero due to market flooding. This > > wasn't technically impossible - it probably could have been accomplished with > > strong encryption. > > Not in software players. > > No matter what kind of encryption you put in a software player, it can > be reverse-engineered. The industry could have put a 17 GB strongly random > OTP in there, and someone with a debugger or decompiler could pull it > right back out again. Sure, in theory you're correct. But the reason Xing got broken was because they made a mistake by putting their key in plaintext. This didn't involve reverse engineering the algorithm or anything like that; someone just got stupid and it was downhill from there. Given the one key, it wasn't hard to pry out 190 more. At that point it became obvious that the algorithm itself was flawed and that keys weren't necessary. I maintain that strong encryption and better security - even on software players - would have accomplished the goal of avoiding that mass replication that they were so concerned about. Would it have been impossible that it would have been defeated? No, of course not. But it would have lowered the odds a great deal, and it would have prolonged the process. As any cryptologist will tell you, the only 100% secure encryption system is a one-time pad. The rest of cryptology is not about making decryption without a key impossible, but to make it impractical. > Mr. Valenti's argument about stronger encryption not having been exportable > seems disingenuous (although he could be unaware of the technical details). > Stronger encryption would have been irrelevant in software players and > probably exportable in hardware players. It would just have been more > expensive. This wasn't just Valenti's argument. This is documented in trade journals from the first half of 1996, when the details of DVD standard were being finalized and the scrambling system was being discussed. One of those methods, at the time called "Content Scrambled DVD", was engineered by Matshusita using a 40-bit key scheme for precisely the reason that they wanted it exportable. A second proposal involved using more than one 40-bit key, effectively using an 80-bit key for the final decryption process. This method was ultimately rejected out of concern that it would be bogged down in government red tape trying to get export permissions. Not just hot air from Valenti; documented fact. Or at least as documented as it gets, anyway. > The industry was, from the point of view supporting technological access > controls, being lazy or cutting corners, and then trying to rely on legal > advocacy to produce a world in which people were legally obliged to act > as though it had succeeded. > > As Judge Kaplan memorably said, they built a moat filled with litigators > rather than alligators. I loved that line. Now *there's* a judge who loves lawyers. I like this quote, too: "The Matsushita method would be easy to break. Legislation and licensing would be necessary to enforce the inclusion of copy protection and to criminalize the manufacture of circumvention devices." - Copy Protection Working Group (the DVD CCA of 1996), quoted in Tape/Disc Business Magazine, October 1996. http://www.kipinet.com/tdb/tdb_oct96/feat_protection.html Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 22:15:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA06849 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:15:55 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA06816 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:15:53 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA07826 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:14:50 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA23937; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:39:18 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Date: 17 Feb 2000 18:38:12 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 13 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88ibak$nbu$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org>, wrote: > Ehhh... close but no burrito. The specific goal the industry was trying > to achieve in 1996-1998 was to find some method of preventing digital > video from being replicated to the point that the effective dollar value > of a digitally-recorded film was zero due to market flooding. This > wasn't technically impossible - it probably could have been accomplished with > strong encryption. No, no, no. You deleted the important part, namely, the fact that the industry insisted on building software players. That's the key point here. No amount of encryption can ever save you: history teaches us that if you build software players, you basically have to give up on security. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 22:18:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA09168 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:18:49 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA09164 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:18:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 12590 invoked by uid 502); 18 Feb 2000 03:22:17 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:22:17 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000217222217.J11768@linuxpower.org> References: <200002180252.VAA11387@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002180252.VAA11387@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>; from dhudson on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 09:44:01PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 09:44:01PM -0500, dhudson wrote: > > By the way, please leave sarcasm aside. This isn't an ego contest. Oh, I don't know. Sarcasm, emotionalism and ego-thumping are often useful tools for separating crap from reason. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 22:40:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA20992 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:40:52 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA20989 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:40:50 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id TAA00450 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:40:40 -0800 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:40:39 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000217194039.P4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> <200002180252.VAA28900@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200002180252.VAA28900@fb01.eng00.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 09:46:05PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Young writes: > There's chart showing the relation of legal and technological > protection on the Digital Transmission Licensing Adminitrator > (DTLA) site, where a new generation of digital protection is > in the works -- the "5C" Digital Transmission Content Protection > (DTCP) specification -- which shows that as technological protection > increases the need for legal protection decreases, and vice versa, > as technological protection decreases the need for legal protection > increases: > > It shows that if strong crypto is used the need for draconian > laws will be reduced. To be sure, the claim is made by > towering cryptographers not moatish litigators. They're correct if their hardware implementations can resist reverse engineering. They're still undertaking the somewhat peculiar strategy of giving a physical implementation of their secret to every single consumer who purchases one. Frank Stevenson (who I think is on this list) disagreed with my suggestion on the other list that genuinely secure tamper-proof hardware could be made. > http://www.dtcp.com/dtcp_tut.pdf > > The 5C DTCP spec (note claims of being hacker tested > and based non-secret algorithm): > > http://www.dtcp.com/spec.html > > DTCP Specification > > To allow for protected transmission of copy-protected material > between digital devices like PC's, DVD Players, and Digital TV's, > five companies -- Hitachi, Intel, Matsushita (MEI), Sony and > Toshiba have prepared the "5C" Digital Transmission Content > Protection (DTCP) specification. > > The DTCP specification defines a cryptographic protocol for > protecting audio/video entertainment content from illegal copying, > intercepting and tampering as it traverses high performance > digital buses, such as the IEEE 1394 standard. Only legitimate > entertainment content delivered to a source device via another > approved copy protection system (such as the DVD Content > Scrambling System) will be protected by this copy protection > system. This is feasible (_if_ the hardware can't be reverse-engineered; note that it doesn't involve a computer or user-accessible software anywhere). It's scary -- because it gives very significant control over multimedia in the future to a closed standards body, and because it could produce major barriers to entry for publishers and technology vendors. But it's more of an alligator approach and might have some real teeth. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 00:28:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA10510 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:28:57 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA10493 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:28:56 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id VAA00570 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:28:40 -0800 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:28:40 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000217212840.Q4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 09:57:10PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 05:50:53PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 01:29:21PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > > > > > > The specific goal the industry was trying to achieve is impossible. > > > > Therefore, they decided that they would simply need to get a law passed > > > > which declared that they had achieved it. > > > > > > Ehhh... close but no burrito. The specific goal the industry was trying > > > to achieve in 1996-1998 was to find some method of preventing digital > > > video from being replicated to the point that the effective dollar value > > > of a digitally-recorded film was zero due to market flooding. This > > > wasn't technically impossible - it probably could have been accomplished with > > > strong encryption. > > > > Not in software players. > > > > No matter what kind of encryption you put in a software player, it can > > be reverse-engineered. The industry could have put a 17 GB strongly random > > OTP in there, and someone with a debugger or decompiler could pull it > > right back out again. > > Sure, in theory you're correct. But the reason Xing got broken was because they > made a mistake by putting their key in plaintext. This didn't involve reverse > engineering the algorithm or anything like that; someone just got stupid and > it was downhill from there. Given the one key, it wasn't hard to pry out 190 > more. At that point it became obvious that the algorithm itself was flawed and > that keys weren't necessary. I've heard that story a dozen or more times, but Xing's mistake seems unimportant here. CSS is a weak algorithm. Knowledge of the algorithm allows cryptographers to break CSS without knowing any keys. Reverse-engineering a player with an embedded key provides knowledge of the algorithm and the key, whether or not the key is internally represented as "plaintext" or somehow obscured. > I maintain that strong encryption and better security - even on software > players - would have accomplished the goal of avoiding that mass replication > that they were so concerned about. How? > Would it have been impossible that it would > have been defeated? No, of course not. But it would have lowered the odds a > great deal, and it would have prolonged the process. Let's say you've got a binary that implements DES and a binary that implements IDEA or Blowfish. But you don't know any of these algorithms. OK, you get out your handy debugger and start working on producing high-level descriptions of these algorithms.... How much longer does the best known attack against Blowfish take than the best known attack against DES? How much longer does it take you to produce a description of Blowfish than a description of DES? Reverse-engineering a functional decryption program is _not_ analogous to brute force attacks against a known cryptosystem. Brute force attacks require computer time proportional to the size of the keyspace (unless there happens to be a useful speedup for the attack). It would be interesting to try to describe more specifically how long reverse engineering to produce a useful high-level description takes. But roughly speaking, it takes _human_ time related to the length of the program being reverse-engineered. This is a crucial distinction which underlies the claim that there is no such thing as a "secure" software player. > As any cryptologist will tell you, the only 100% secure encryption system > is a one-time pad. The rest of cryptology is not about making decryption > without a key impossible, but to make it impractical. Right. Now, discussions of the security of cryptosystems ordinarily assume that the cryptosystems are known and are controlled by keys which are unknown. In the case of a software player, the cryptosystem and key are both known! They are not necessarily represented in a preferred form, but they are both in the direct possession of the attacker. > > Mr. Valenti's argument about stronger encryption not having been exportable > > seems disingenuous (although he could be unaware of the technical details). > > Stronger encryption would have been irrelevant in software players and > > probably exportable in hardware players. It would just have been more > > expensive. > > This wasn't just Valenti's argument. This is documented in trade journals > from the first half of 1996, when the details of DVD standard were being > finalized and the scrambling system was being discussed. One of those > methods, at the time called "Content Scrambled DVD", was engineered by > Matshusita using a 40-bit key scheme for precisely the reason that they > wanted it exportable. > > A second proposal involved using more than one 40-bit key, effectively > using an 80-bit key for the final decryption process. This method was > ultimately rejected out of concern that it would be bogged down in government > red tape trying to get export permissions. > > Not just hot air from Valenti; documented fact. Or at least as documented > as it gets, anyway. I didn't know that. That's very interesting, because it means that the industry very consciously planned to use the DMCA to mitigate the predictable consequences of their efforts to save time and money. When I read Valenti's comment in the _LA Times_ for the first time, I thought that this was an incredibly bizarre attitude. Imagine that a communications carrier behaving that way. Everyone should run (not walk) to the nearest bookstore, buy a copy of _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_ (ISBN 0-393-31604-1), and read pp. 144-6. The danger is not the insecurity of the system, but the individual's knowledge and _ability_ to defeat it (regardless of whether the individual actually defeats it or for what reasons). > I like this quote, too: > > "The Matsushita method would be easy to break. Legislation and licensing > would be necessary to enforce the inclusion of copy protection and to > criminalize the manufacture of circumvention devices." > > - Copy Protection Working Group (the DVD CCA of 1996), quoted in Tape/Disc > Business Magazine, October 1996. > > http://www.kipinet.com/tdb/tdb_oct96/feat_protection.html More good t-shirt material. Maybe I should just collect all of these and put them on one single t-shirt. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 00:44:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA14869 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:44:20 -0500 Received: from gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (smtp.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA14866 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:44:19 -0500 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA16676 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from 128.164.127.252 (webmail.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.246]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA26188; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:53:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002180553.AAA26188@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:44:44 -0500 From: dhudson To: dhudson , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002218 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's my 2c. >http://eon.law.harvard.edu/HyperNews/get3/opendvd/4.html? > 1)A) 1201(a)(3)(A) fails > > DMCA bars breaking an ACCESS CIRCUMVENTION SCHEME. The MPAA will > argue > that the license to "view" is not a license to break CSS and > decidedly > not a license to distribute DeCSS. > Yes, I'm claiming there is no circumvention by the definition in > 1201(a)(3)(A), since the result of compiling DeCSS and then using the > executible is within the "view" copyright authority granted. You do not > need a licence to "break CSS" or to "distribute DeCSS". These are > covered under "right to liberty" unless they violate the law. I note > that the DVD copyright does NOT state that you may descrambe using > authorized players, so my arguement holds or you have no access, > period. My only point is the DMCA prohibiting, by its words, -all- circumvention, not just circumvention to break copyright: the statute bans anything which circumvents access, whether you have a license to view the underlying work or not. Your argument makes a lot of sense, but it requires the judge to read into the DMCA implicit permission to circumvent access to works you are licensed to view, perhaps from the word "unauthorized"--and while Judge Kaplan should do that, there is no reason why he has to. After all, the MPAA provides a license to you (the consumer) to the underlying copyrighted work, and the MPAA provides, though the DVD-CCA, a license to the CSS code, to a limited number of DVD and software providers. They are legally two different beasts. > > The NET act makes non-commercial use subject to liability. [...] > I assume since you refer to the 'NET' act and not section 1201(a)(2)(B) > that you have nothing to rebut that 1201(a)(2)(B) fails. No, the NET act is a later act of congress granting (in part) criminal liability for non-commercial piracy worth more than $10k. While I'm not certain, I believe that the NET act extended the DMCA to non-commercial use as well--I need to check this, though--I believe it is in the NY MPAA Prelim. Injunction Mem of Law. > 1)E)i) "Fair Use" access implicitly granted by "first sale" > > Except it's not clear whether fair use is CONSTITUTIONALLY required. > Well, I'm asserting that it is under the "progress of science and arts" > part" part of the copyright power, and under the 1st Amendment, and as > a historical right protected by the 9th Amendment. Nor is it clear that Congress can trump the "limited times" of copyright by granting eternal access controls. Some of the comments to the LOC rulemaking point this out. Your point is a great one, although the 9th amendment is less important than the text of the copyright statute. > 1)E)ii) Congress did not intend to overturn "fair use" with the DMCA > > [...] Violations of 1201 itself are not copyright infringement, but a > > de novo statutory offense. [...] copyright infringement defenses [d]o > > not apply to the DMCA > My first arguement is that if the copying would be "fair use" then you > fail the "without authority" part of the circumvention test. Fair use > grants authority to use. This is true, so long as you can link the license to use CSS with the consumer license to copyright. We have to show that "authority" to circumvent comes from a copyright license, not from an "access" license, because: (1) if you need an "access" license for authority to view, then it's exactly what you've been arguing--the DMCA is an unconstitutional supercopyright law, and (2) if "copyright" license is what is needed to access, then the MPAA loses for DeCSS users who are not pirates. The second case, however, could by a pyric victory: on first pass all the MPAA has to do is change their DVD license to authorize performance in only authorized DVD players---and we are back in court asking how much fair use can a consumer lose via contract. And according to Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit, a copyright owner can ask a consumer to license away most of their fair use rights. I can get you a quote this weekend, when I do some legal research on the matter. > Secondly, to the extent that this bill creates > new statutory offenses, it does so under the limited enumerated powers > of the Constitution. If the statute regulates something besides > copyright infringment then it must do some under some identifiable > power other than the copyright clause and then it has nothing to > "balance" against the first amendment freedom of speach. The DMCA is broader than the copyright clause, so it's either under the commerce clause or nec & proper clause. There is the first amendment defense (with the difficulties that has in the copyright law context), but there is also the question of whether congress can get by the express constitutional limitations of the copyright clause (limited times, progress of arts and sciences, works of authorship) by fleeing to another clause. I hope they can't. > Ummm, No. The entire history of commercial software is filled with > source-code-less executables. DeCSS source code, once compiled, isn't > part of the executable. As such, it is not 'a component' of the > technology. The recipe is not a component of the cake. Also, no one is > accused of distributing DeCSS object code. Distributing LSD is illegal, > distributing the article on LSD synthesis is not. You're right, I'm wrong. See what I say above: with the speech components, DeCSS source code, discussions, congress can only bar them if they serve only a primarily illegal purpose. The DeCSS executable is another question. Fair use is in jeopardy if the average consumer has to compile his or her own program to exercise their rights. If this isn't constructive, let me know. Just trying to help here. IANALY. -Doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 00:44:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA14921 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:44:50 -0500 Received: from mtiwmhc09.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc09.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.18]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA14918 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:44:49 -0500 Received: from alaptop.hotwired.com ([12.78.117.89]) by mtiwmhc09.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <20000218054443.KLKN7877@alaptop.hotwired.com> for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 05:44:43 +0000 Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000218004025.01f4a7f0@pop.webcom.com> X-Sender: y2kc@pop.webcom.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:43:00 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision In-Reply-To: <20000217212821.G11768@linuxpower.org> References: <4.3.0.20000217204613.0244b710@pop.webcom.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <4.3.0.20000217204613.0244b710@pop.webcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rob, I know you're just repeating what you've read, and I don't mean to make a big deal of this. I'm also leaving in a few hours for an encryption conference, so I don't have a whole lot of time to spend on this. But I think that what you've read is wrong. There was (and remains) an explicit exemption in the regulations that allowed people to export "copyright-protecting" crypto *without* approval. -Declan At 21:28 2/17/2000 -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 08:47:18PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > At 20:23 2/17/2000 -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > >They couldn't use strong encryption because of U.S. export laws, > > > > I know this is conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's right. I > believe > > there was an exception in the old regs. > > > > Please cite the exact portion of the old regs (available at eff.org, > > epic.org) that prohibits what you say it does. > >Okay; let me rephrase. > >They intentionally chose a weak encryption scheme in order to not have to >delay the rollout of DVD technology while waiting for a government >decision as to whether or not their "encryption" system legally constituted >a weapon, as strong encryption was considered by the United States in 1996. > >I will admit, this is mainly my opinion from the evidence I've read so far. >It could be mistaken; I wasn't there. At any rate, there was most certainly >the concern on the part of the companies involved (particular Matshusita) >that the new scrambling method would run afoul of the U.S. export regs. > >The trade magazine articles from the time that I've read seem to substantiate >this. Whether or not CSS would have actually incurred the wrath of government >is basically immaterial here; it was a business decision made out of concern >that the approval process would take too long, impacting the financial >feasibility of DVD. > > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 02:12:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA11691 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:12:25 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA11688 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:12:23 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA08650 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 23:11:21 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA32714; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:35:49 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Date: 17 Feb 2000 22:34:42 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 40 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88ip62$vu9$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org>, wrote: > [...] the reason Xing got broken was because they > made a mistake by putting their key in plaintext. This didn't involve reverse > engineering the algorithm or anything like that; someone just got stupid and > it was downhill from there. I believe you are wrong. Every indication is that the CSS algorithm *was* reverse engineered. Are you sure you understand how reverse engineering works? Anyway, even if Xing had not revealed the key, so maybe it takes the twice as long to bypass the obfuscation and reverse engineer things. Big deal. Do you want to rely on that as part of your security model? Doesn't sound like a very effective or reliable foundation to me. Software protection and obfuscation has never worked in the past; why should anyone expect software DVD players to be any different? > Given the one key, it wasn't hard to pry out 190 > more. At that point it became obvious that the algorithm itself was flawed and > that keys weren't necessary. No, no, you're misunderstanding. That's not how reverse engineering and algorithm analysis works. > I maintain that strong encryption and better security - even on software > players - would have accomplished the goal of avoiding that mass replication > that they were so concerned about. Sorry, but I think you are engaging in unfounded optimism. Encryption is only good for securing an insecure communications medium: but it still requires a secure endpoint to do the computations on. When we talk about software players where the adversary controls the CPU, there is no such secure endpoint in sight. It just can't, won't work. History has shown -- over and over again -- that you can't prevent reverse engineering through obfuscation, and you can't win the software copy protection game. I could cite numerous examples, but I don't think they should be necessary. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 03:56:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA07566 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:56:56 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA07563 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:56:55 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12LjE0-000AKk-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:57:20 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Fri, 18 Feb 100 09:57:19 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> from "greslin@linuxpower.org" at Feb 17, 0 09:57:10 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Not in software players. > > > > No matter what kind of encryption you put in a software player, it can > > be reverse-engineered. The industry could have put a 17 GB strongly random > > OTP in there, and someone with a debugger or decompiler could pull it > > right back out again. > > Sure, in theory you're correct. But the reason Xing got broken was because they > made a mistake by putting their key in plaintext. This didn't involve reverse > engineering the algorithm or anything like that; someone just got stupid and > it was downhill from there. Given the one key, it wasn't hard to pry out 190 > more. At that point it became obvious that the algorithm itself was flawed and > that keys weren't necessary. Before Xing was broken, software players had been modified to redirect the MPEG stream to disc without even knowing the keys. To my knowledge the MPAA/DVD CCA never went after this breach, but that doesn't invalidate it. A breach of that nature does not depend on keysize. Even if a hypothetical unbreakable code were used, a software decoder could always be modified to direct the decoded date somewhere not intended by its creator. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 08:49:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA05658 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:49:33 -0500 Received: from the-village.bc.nu (lightning.swansea.uk.linux.org [194.168.151.1]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA05655 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:49:25 -0500 Received: from alan by the-village.bc.nu with local (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Lnm1-0003bL-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:48:45 +0000 Received: from alan by the-village.bc.nu with local (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Llj4-0003RD-00 for alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:37:34 +0000 Received: from alan by the-village.bc.nu with local (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12LVau-00025L-00 for alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:24:04 +0000 Received: from alan by the-village.bc.nu with local (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12LSp2-0001qv-00 for alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:26:28 +0000 Received: from ganymede.linux.org ([198.182.196.48] ident=root) by the-village.bc.nu with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12LSKY-0001oc-00 for alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:55:06 +0000 Received: from relay07.indigo.ie (relay07.indigo.ie [194.125.133.231]) by ganymede.linux.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA23101 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:55:42 -0500 Received: (qmail 7522 messnum 1016574 invoked from network[194.125.152.58/mail.online.ie]); 17 Feb 2000 14:55:39 -0000 Received: from mail.online.ie (HELO xena.fv.digiserve.ie) (194.125.152.58) by relay07.indigo.ie (qp 7522) with SMTP; 17 Feb 2000 14:55:39 -0000 Received: (from jplooney@localhost) by xena.fv.digiserve.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA07238 for Alan.Cox@linux.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:54:38 GMT Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:54:38 +0000 From: "John P . Looney" To: Alan.Cox@linux.org Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD summit questions Message-ID: <20000217145438.G3731@online.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.2i X-OS: Red Hat Linux 6.1/Linux 2.3.42 X-URL: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~valen X-GnuPG-publickey: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~valen/public.asc Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Alan, myself and a few other troublemakers were considering organising some sort of protest/press event at the upcoming DVD industry summit, that's happening in Dublin in April[0]. The focus would be on highlighting to the press what DeCSS is about, and the fact that alternative OSes don't get a look-in to DVD without it. There's a fair chance that Jordan Hubbard of FreeBSD fame may be in Ireland around that time, which would rock, if we could grab a few hours of his time. Now that I'm working for a "news" style website company (no product yet, but www.online.ie will kick ass in about three weeks time), I'm getting to talk to all sorts of journalist types, and a few have said that they could get the story into their publications (Wired, Irish times, Observer, and a few other "maybes"). I was wondering if you know any people that were relatively well-known to the press, that would be a) interested in taking part b) had a clue how to run such a thing. Sorry to bother your hacking, Kate [0] http://www.dvdsummit.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 10:10:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA30005 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:10:27 -0500 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org (root@humbolt.geo.uu.nl [131.211.28.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29988 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:10:26 -0500 Received: from agratax.demon.nl ([212.238.108.69]:47620 "EHLO agratax.demon.nl") by humbolt.nl.linux.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:00:25 +0100 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45572 "EHLO localhost") by mirkwood.nl.linux.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:54:08 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:54:07 +0100 (CET) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@mirkwood.dummy.home To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA cannot hide behind DMCA to create antitrust violations In-Reply-To: <20000216202059.Q4856@cty-alum.org> Message-ID: Organisation: NL.linux.org (http://www.nl.linux.org/) X-Search-Engine-Bait: http://www.nl.linux.org/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > iii) Constitution, art. 1, sect. 9, "No preference shall be > > given by any regulation of commerce" prohibits regional > > preference within the US. > > iv) Coors-Strohs "gentleman's agreement" is illegal restraint of > > trade. > > v) Copyright clause cannot be used to enact legislation > > that gives force of law to "gentleman's agreement" restraint > > of trade in DVDs. > > Discrimination against other countries is _routine_ and even > mandated by US law. If you fail to properly discriminate against > other countries (tariffs, quotas, ITARs, anti-boycott, all sorts > of reporting regulations), you can be convicted of a felony! > > Region codes don't currently discriminate against any state in the > US. They _could_, be wouldn't a court consider that possibility > merely speculative until it actually happens? What about Costa Rica? There seem to be some 4 million Spanish language US citizens there who won't be allowed to buy region 4 DVDs (and region 1 DVDs often don't contain their language). cheers, Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 10:25:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02990 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:25:12 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02982 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:25:09 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12LpHj-000eLk-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:25:35 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA cannot hide behind DMCA to create antitrust To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Fri, 18 Feb 100 16:25:34 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "Rik van Riel" at Feb 18, 0 02:54:07 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Region codes don't currently discriminate against any state in the > > US. They _could_, be wouldn't a court consider that possibility > > merely speculative until it actually happens? > > What about Costa Rica? > > There seem to be some 4 million Spanish language US citizens > there who won't be allowed to buy region 4 DVDs (and region > 1 DVDs often don't contain their language). Do you mean Puerto Rico? Costa Rica is in Central America and certainly not a US state. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 10:38:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA08750 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:38:04 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA08721 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:38:02 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14263 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:37:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:37:52 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000218103752.E10572@nacs.net> References: <200002180553.AAA26188@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002180553.AAA26188@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:44:44AM -0500, dhudson wrote: > You're right, I'm wrong. See what I say above: with the speech components, > DeCSS source code, discussions, congress can only bar them if they serve > only a primarily illegal purpose. The DeCSS executable is another question. > Fair use is in jeopardy if the average consumer has to compile his or her > own program to exercise their rights. Not necessarily. For almost every platform conceivable, you could produce a package containing the source and a C compiler and other required files. Programmers/hackers will *hate* this sort of hack, but from the consumer perspective, they just have a longer install. If/when source code becomes defensible under the First Amendment, I'm certain you will see this a lot to get around remaining government controls. Similar methods have been used to get around licensed products which have prohibitive distribution restrictions for binary form. The Red Hat package management tool (RPM) supports this type of operation. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 10:59:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19727 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:59:18 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA19724 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:59:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 7325 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Feb 2000 15:59:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20000218155943.7324.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 07:59:43 PST Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 07:59:43 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Declan McCullagh wrote: > At 20:23 2/17/2000 -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >They couldn't use strong encryption because of U.S. export laws, > > I know this is conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's right. I > believe there was an exception in the old regs. > > Please cite the exact portion of the old regs (available at eff.org, > epic.org) that prohibits what you say it does. Umm, they weren't actually exporting the encryption algorithm, just the decryption algorithm. In fact, they could have just given the government the decryption algorithm and copies of all unencrypted messages. Actually, it is probably enough for them just to give the governement playback software. The governement only gets testy when you want to make messages it can't read. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 12:08:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08634 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:08:20 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08616 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:08:17 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14641 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:08:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:08:04 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] HDCP content encryption implications, anyone? Message-ID: <20000218120803.G10572@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It doesn't say the purpose of this scheme but hints at it by describing it as the "missing link". HDCP is content encryption from a playback device to the display, and is being released by Intel. I shudder to think how this will be used, but as it is billed as "protecting commercial entertainment content." This would prevent the screen-capture method, and most likely make screen capturing your own screen an act of circumvention as defined by 1201. Unless you get a camcorder and point it at your screen. Most likely, it will also allow a device such as a DVD player decide not to output to a device capable of recording. This could eventually mean that analog recordings of digital media would require circumvention techniques. This is not certain, but it's certainly not paranoia... unless I'm missing somthing, (and I've been over this a few times in my head now), there isn't another likely purpose. http://www.eetimes.com/story/0EG20000217S0039 http://www.digital-cp.com Someone needs to request a copy of the spec. I don't have an address I can use at the moment... The American Medical Association will to-morrow announce that it has devised an encryption system composed of a computer chip and some minor, "harmless" neurosurgery such that media content can be encrypted on a display device such as a television and "unscrambled" by a chip in the viewer's brain. "This is the final link required to truly protect the rights of the artists and creators in America," said a wealthy billionaire who has more money than any of the six rich artists currently in the country... Ok. THAT was paranoia. Everything above it wasn't. ;) -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 12:35:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA16154 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:35:32 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA16151 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:35:24 -0500 Received: (qmail 22522 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Feb 2000 17:35:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20000218173546.22521.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:35:46 PST Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:35:46 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- dhudson wrote: > > Yes, I'm claiming there is no circumvention by the definition in > > 1201(a)(3)(A), since the result of compiling DeCSS and then using > > the executible is within the "view" copyright authority granted. You do > > not need a licence to "break CSS" or to "distribute DeCSS". These > > are covered under "right to liberty" unless they violate the law. I > > note that the DVD copyright does NOT state that you may > > descrambe using authorized players, so my arguement holds or you > > have no access, period. > > My only point is the DMCA prohibiting, by its words, -all- > circumvention, not just circumvention to break copyright: the statute > bans anything which circumvents access, whether you have a license to > view the underlying work or not. > [...] After all, the > MPAA provides a license to you (the consumer) to the underlying > copyrighted work, and the MPAA provides, though the DVD-CCA, a > license to the CSS code, to a limited number of DVD and software > providers. They are legally two different beasts. Again, my point is that the access provided by DeCSS is non-circumventing access and is thereby not covered by the prohibition against '-all- circumvention'. The DVD alone, as the sole item exchanged with the copyright holder, must provide the full conditions that determine which access is circumvention and which access is non-circumvention. The player, which is a separate product from a party other than the DVD copyright holder cannot provide that grant. No entity can provide a blanket grant to access "all DVDs" since the copyright power is the excusive right of the creator. Perhaps if the player came with a specific list of movies that it granted access to, after obtaining permission to do this, this would work, but no such list is provided. I also have never seen any language that comes with the players that attempts to provide the access grant from the copyright holder of the movies. Unless this was attempted, this whole conversation is theoretical only. I also argue that the DVD's grant to 'view' is inherently a grant to access. In this medium, they are equivalent. You cannot view without descrambling, so a grant to 'view' is a grant to descramble. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 12:47:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA19529 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:47:23 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA19471 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:47:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 27842 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Feb 2000 17:47:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20000218174720.27841.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:47:20 PST Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:47:20 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Wow. I didn't realize the Librarian had made a determination in this > case. That was quick. I don't suppose you have a URL to back up > that assertion? The LOC has not made any determination one way or the other. Until such determination is made, I don't think the court should preemt the decision. The law grants exclusive power to the LOC to determine what is and what is not a non-infringing use. I'm saying the law is an overly broad restraint of speech for this reason until the LOC speaks. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 12:58:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA22458 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:58:22 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA22455 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:58:21 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id JAA01285 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:58:09 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:58:08 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000218095808.C4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000218174720.27841.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000218174720.27841.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:47:20AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor writes: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > Wow. I didn't realize the Librarian had made a determination in this > > case. That was quick. I don't suppose you have a URL to back up > > that assertion? > > The LOC has not made any determination one way or the other. Until such > determination is made, I don't think the court should preemt the > decision. The law grants exclusive power to the LOC to determine what > is and what is not a non-infringing use. I'm saying the law is an > overly broad restraint of speech for this reason until the LOC speaks. But the lawsuits weren't brought over an act of circumvention, they were brought over the distribution of a circumvention technology. The Librarian has no authority to grant an exception permitting the distribution of a circumvention technology. The provision outlawing circumvention has not even taken effect yet, and was certainly not cited in court by plaintiffs (although it was mentioned by defendants). Circumvention technologies will remain just as illegal after the Librarian's decision as before it. Acts of circumvention which are not yet illegal will become illegal, though, unless the Librarian chooses to exempt all otherwise legal acts from the DMCA. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 13:05:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA24262 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:05:26 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA24259 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:05:25 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.251] (helo=ip251.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12Lrmp-0000iY-00; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:05:52 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP content encryption implications, anyone? Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 18:05:04 GMT Message-ID: <38ad846e.2705828@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000218120803.G10572@nacs.net> In-Reply-To: <20000218120803.G10572@nacs.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id NAA24260 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:08:04 -0500, Jason wrote: http://www.digital-cp.com/ This is a great Web site--so informative. Why do they even bother? They will win. These multi-billion dollar corporations who consider us all potential criminals. We may be music fans and movie buffs as well, but criminals is our natural bent. I see this as an extension of the Hitachi, Intel, Panasonic, Sony, and Toshiba led Firewire encryption. I think we need to identify the companies that are pushing this stuff and which of their competitiors--if any--aren't. It will make my decision to build PCs around AMD chips that much easier. (I'm already boycotting Hollywood--not the place--just the product. I might have to make an exception to get that mini-DV camcorder. Perhaps need to keep on saving for a Canon. C'est la vie.) >Most likely, it will also allow a device such as a DVD player decide not to >output to a device capable of recording. This could eventually mean that >analog recordings of digital media would require circumvention techniques. I've been wondering about this WRT ReplayTV and Tivo. Will they allow output to a VCR? [back to the legalese...] __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 13:32:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA31775 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:32:55 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA31612 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:32:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 22357 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Feb 2000 18:33:04 -0000 Message-ID: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:33:04 PST Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:33:04 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Which is untrue, since the current legal action in New York is being > applied to the DeCSS Windows binary and not the css-auth source > code. If the outcome of the case is that distribution of the DeCSS binary is made illegal, but the source code form is allowed, I will consider that a victory. > > access using DeCSS is authorized by the DVD copyrights, > > It is?? Then why are we bothering with a court case? By all means, > show me where in the "DVD copyright" it says that the content may be > accessed using technologies other than those provided for under the > DVD Forum license. For example, my DVD (The English Patient), grants 'this DVD is for private home viewing only'. The access is inherently granted in the viewing part. No where does it say 'you have to use a licenced player'. See the other thread about this. > The most you can argue here is that the playback issue isn't even > addressed publicly on DVD packages and therefore constitutes > consumer fraud. I think it IS addressed in the grant for 'viewing', which is the only grant I can find that would allow access on the Xing player, say. However, it would indeed be consumer fraud if customers rely on that language in making their purchases. > > it qualifies for the reverse engineering exception, > > It does?? Funny, I seem to recall that "reverse engineering for > reasons of system interoperability" directly applies to computer software > - not to copyrighted media. The plaintiffs fabricated this arguement. The defendants, who had no time to prepare, did not present any counter arguement during the preliminary injuction hearing. The judge accepted the arguement without critical analysis and thereby butchered the law. First of all, it IS the decryption software that is reverse engineered, so EVEN under this mistaken reading of the law, DeCSS is ok. The arguement presented seems to say it is illegal to reverse engineer the movie. DeCSS is not a movie. In fact 'reverse engineer the movie' are a bunch of words with no meaning. Secondly, the "computer program's only" arguement is flat out wrong. While it is true that parts of 1201(f)(1) speak about access circumvention 'to a particular portion of that program', this is not the part of the law that we seek haven in. There is no such reference in 1201(f)(2): which says in relevant part: "... a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, ... for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability ..." Creating an independant player program capable of interoperating with open source programs and/or the CSS encryption program, certainly meets this clause. This clause was designed to preserve the right to read proprietary computer file formats, following judicial precedent that this is valid. This is EXACTLY what DeCSS does it for the .vob format. This part of Kaplan's explanation made me livid. He endorses nonsense and fairy tales made up by the plaintiffs. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 13:48:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA04248 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:48:40 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA04231 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:48:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 23513 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Feb 2000 18:48:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20000218184857.23512.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:48:57 PST Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:48:57 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Seth David Schoen wrote: > The Librarian has no authority to grant an exception permitting the > distribution of a circumvention technology. Why do you say this? I read the law as saying the LOC could grant exceptions under 1201(a), though, I agree not 1201(b), where it isn't needed. The concept is that access circumvention issues require an equivalent protection to fair use. Wouldn't a limitation on LOC exceptions to 1201(a)(1) only allow a situation where it is illegal to help others do something they are legally entitled to do. This seems like a bizarre reading. By what constitutional power could Congress prohibit the free distribution of a tool that was not illegal to use? Also, if the LOC declares that certain access is non-circumvention under 1201(a)(1), would this same access be non-circumvention under 1201(a)(2)? This would allow the LOC not to have to approve every tool out there, but simply to create categories of authorized access. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 14:12:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA10729 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:12:58 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA10726 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:12:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 24594 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Feb 2000 19:13:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000218191305.24593.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:13:05 PST Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:13:05 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] ROTFL To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There was an announcement for DeCSS on Freshmeat today. Read the homepage for a good laugh: http://www.pigdog.org/decss/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 14:29:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA16121 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:29:14 -0500 Received: from penguin.lvcm.com (root@penguin.lvcablemodem.com [24.234.57.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16118 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:29:12 -0500 Received: (from jedi@localhost) by penguin.lvcm.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA00989 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:31:10 -0800 From: JEDIDIAH Message-Id: <200002181931.LAA00989@penguin.lvcm.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA cannot hide behind DMCA to create antitrust To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:31:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "Sham Gardner" at Feb 18, 2000 07:31:32 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > > Region codes don't currently discriminate against any state in the > > > US. They _could_, be wouldn't a court consider that possibility > > > merely speculative until it actually happens? > > > > What about Costa Rica? > > > > There seem to be some 4 million Spanish language US citizens > > there who won't be allowed to buy region 4 DVDs (and region > > 1 DVDs often don't contain their language). > > Do you mean Puerto Rico? Costa Rica is in Central America and certainly not > a US state. Forget about Puerto Rico. Let's consider the rest of the US, like California, Florida, Texas, New Mexico and Nevada where there are significant Spanish speaking populations. That's not even getting into other, smaller cultural enclaves in other areas of the country. Suppose a bubba from Buffalo wants to buy a Russian language DVD? [deletia] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 14:40:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18370 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:40:48 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA18367 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:40:47 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA08630 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:41:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38ADA022.32578B63@cdpage.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:40:18 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Planned protest Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Pardon me. I'm involved with the DVD Summit in Dublin, as well as co-chair of the forthcoming DVD 2000 Europe in London in May (http://www.prostudio.com/dvd/). I am also conference chair of the largest DVD conference in the world, DVD PRO (http:www.dvdpro.net), taking place this July in San Francisco. In case it hasn't been pointed out, the DVD "industry" is not monolithic in its views of DeCSS and the MPAA's and DVD CCA's lawsuits. In other words, don't protest the conference per se, since there are supporters (such as myself) who will be attending. Protest the MPAA's and DVD CCA's actions and the DMCA instead. Many of the DVD industry will join you, if you make this clear. Even more will join when and if they understand what's truly at stake here. I would be happy to work with you on presenting the ENTIRE DeCSS story at DVD PRO. I have planned a session within the conference program to explore the clash between New Media and Old Laws. If you're interested in organizing a protest/press event at DVD PRO, I can help. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 14:52:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA21160 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:52:02 -0500 Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA21128 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:51:50 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04237 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:52:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01998 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:34:53 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000217173753.6100.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20000217173753.6100.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:33:28 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Fair use a constitutional right? The judge thinks it is Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu One argument that has come up a couple of times is whether fair use is protected by the constitution. Those who say no point out that fair use guidelines are spelled out it the copyright law itself and, as an act of Congress can be repealed by Congress at its whim. Others say fair use is inherent in the First Amendment and Congress is merely clarifying the rules. It would appear that Judge Kaplan is in the latter camp. In his Memorandum Opinion http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-mo.htm he says: "To the extent there is any tension between free speech and protection of copyright, the Court has found it to be accommodated fully by traditional fair use doctrine,35 with expression prohibited by the Copyright Act and not within the fair use exception considered unprotected by the First Amendment.36 " It is reasonable to suppose that expression within the fair use exception *can* be considered protected by the First Amendment. 17 USC1201b (prohibiting distribution of circumvention technology) shuts down fair use. Even if the Librarian of Congress issues reasonable fair use guidelines under 1201a (prohibiting circumvention), any permitted circumvention would need tools whose distribution violate 1201b as Judge Kaplan interprets it. Therefore 1201b goes well beyond what is necessary and proper to implement the Copyright provision of the Constitution and cannot escape First Amendment scrutiny. In general Judge Kaplan's memorandum can serve a good guide for our arguments. The Judge is clearly aware that this case is at the boundary between Copyright and the First Amendment and he is trying his best to move the boundary in favor of the copyright industry. Arnold Reinhold ____________________ 35 See id. [Harper & Row Publishers Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 555-60 (1985)] at 560. See also Wainwright Securities, Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91, 95 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1014 (1978) ("Conflicts between interests protected by the first amendment and the copyright laws thus far have been resolved by application of the fair use doctrine.''); Nihon Keizai Shimbun Inc. v. Comline Business Data, Inc., 166 F.3d 65, 74 (2d Cir. 1999). 36 See, e.g., Nihon Keizai Shimbum, 166 F.3d at 74. " From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 15:06:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA25498 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:06:56 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA25495 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:06:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 13812 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 20:02:29 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 20:02:29 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03582; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:07:18 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:07:18 -0800 Message-Id: <200002182007.MAA03582@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP is a declaration of war IMHO Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Three words: This Is War! I'm not waiting for public opinion. Any technology I will ever develop is going to take this into account. I'm glad my 19" monitor will last me a few years. Long enough to kill this. Rares PS: How far is openlaw going to go once it clears the first 5-10 cases? Is it possible to pre-emptively create legislation that blocks this kind of abuse? rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) wrote: >On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:08:04 -0500, Jason wrote: > >http://www.digital-cp.com/ >This is a great Web site--so informative. Why do they even bother? > >They will win. These multi-billion dollar corporations who consider >us all potential criminals. We may be music fans and movie buffs as >well, but criminals is our natural bent. > >I see this as an extension of the Hitachi, Intel, Panasonic, Sony, and >Toshiba led Firewire encryption. > >I think we need to identify the companies that are pushing this stuff >and which of their competitiors--if any--aren't. It will make my decision >to build PCs around AMD chips that much easier. > >(I'm already boycotting Hollywood--not the place--just the product. >I might have to make an exception to get that mini-DV camcorder. >Perhaps need to keep on saving for a Canon. C'est la vie.) > >>Most likely, it will also allow a device such as a DVD player decide not to >>output to a device capable of recording. This could eventually mean that >>analog recordings of digital media would require circumvention techniques. > >I've been wondering about this WRT ReplayTV and Tivo. Will they allow >output to a VCR? > >[back to the legalese...] > > >__________no-∞-do__________ ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 15:25:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30967 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:25:52 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30964 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:25:51 -0500 Received: from dell3 (roam216-46.law.harvard.edu [140.247.216.46]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA11739 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:26:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007c01bf7a4e$cd6e7830$2ed8f78c@dell3> From: "Diane Cabell" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] Interesting deCSS effort Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:29:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.pigdog.org/decss/ Diane Cabell Berkman Fellow Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 15:29:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA32151 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:29:35 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA32126 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:29:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 15298 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 20:25:08 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 20:25:08 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06833; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:29:58 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:29:58 -0800 Message-Id: <200002182029.MAA06833@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: Dana Parker Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggestions for a safe Planned protest Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I don't know what Dubliners usually do in protest situations. But I do know a bunch of uninvited miscreants can screw it. You want to prevent another pointless Seattle-like explosion w/ the complementary media spin doctoring, ignorance, and just playin lying. Anyone planning a protest contact the local police departments and come up with a plan. Then in the following order: contact the media that you have contacted the police departments, contact independent newspapers that you have contacted the police departments and the media, contact the police departments and the media that you have contacted independent publications, ccontact the independent publications that you have contacted the police and media. Make sure however, before talking about protest plans that you let them all know who you're going to contact. This way everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows in the likely case things could get seriously and pointlessly ugly. Now I have half a mind to pass this on to slashdot.org. Anyone believe thare's any reason I shouldn't? Dana Parker wrote: >Pardon me. I'm involved with the DVD Summit in Dublin, as well as >co-chair of the forthcoming DVD 2000 Europe in London in May >(http://www.prostudio.com/dvd/). > >I am also conference chair of the largest DVD conference in the world, >DVD PRO (http:www.dvdpro.net), taking place this July in San Francisco. > >In case it hasn't been pointed out, the DVD "industry" is not monolithic >in its views of DeCSS and the MPAA's and DVD CCA's lawsuits. In other >words, don't protest the conference per se, since there are supporters >(such as myself) who will be attending. Protest the MPAA's and DVD CCA's >actions and the DMCA instead. Many of the DVD industry will join you, if >you make this clear. Even more will join when and if they understand >what's truly at stake here. > >I would be happy to work with you on presenting the ENTIRE DeCSS story >at DVD PRO. I have planned a session within the conference program to >explore the clash between New Media and Old Laws. If you're interested >in organizing a protest/press event at DVD PRO, I can help. > >-- >Dana J. Parker >Consultant >http://www.cdpage.com >Contributing editor/standards columnist >Emedia magazine >http://www.emediapro.net >DVD PRO Conference Chair >http://www.dvdpro.net >I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression >http://www.eff.org/cafe > >mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com > > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 15:32:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA00459 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:32:48 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA00456 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:32:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 26738 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Feb 2000 20:33:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000218203302.26737.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:33:02 PST Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:33:02 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP is a declaration of war IMHO To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Rares Marian wrote: > PS: How far is openlaw going to go once it clears the first 5-10 > cases? Is it possible to pre-emptively create legislation that > blocks this kind of abuse? I certainly hope so. A idea that I had was to create an alternative to UCITA called something like the "Software Consumer Protection Act" and then put it on the ballot for direct public vote in states where this is allowed. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 16:00:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11538 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:00:47 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.118.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11535 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:00:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16863 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:55:51 -0600 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:55:51 -0600 (CST) From: sam th X-Sender: sam@localhost.localdomain To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA In-Reply-To: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > it qualifies for the reverse engineering exception, > > > > It does?? Funny, I seem to recall that "reverse engineering for > > reasons of system interoperability" directly applies to computer > software > - not to copyrighted media. > > The plaintiffs fabricated this arguement. The defendants, who had no > time to prepare, did not present any counter arguement during the > preliminary injuction hearing. The judge accepted the arguement without > critical analysis and thereby butchered the law. > > First of all, it IS the decryption software that is reverse engineered, > so EVEN under this mistaken reading of the law, DeCSS is ok. The > arguement presented seems to say it is illegal to reverse engineer the > movie. DeCSS is not a movie. In fact 'reverse engineer the movie' are a > bunch of words with no meaning. > > Secondly, the "computer program's only" arguement is flat out wrong. > While it is true that parts of 1201(f)(1) speak about access > circumvention 'to a particular portion of that program', this is not > the part of the law that we seek haven in. > > There is no such reference in 1201(f)(2): which says in relevant part: > "... a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent > a technological measure, ... for the purpose of enabling > interoperability of an independently created computer program with > other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such > interoperability ..." > > Creating an independant player program capable of interoperating with > open source programs and/or the CSS encryption program, certainly meets > this clause. This clause was designed to preserve the right to read > proprietary computer file formats, following judicial precedent that > this is valid. This is EXACTLY what DeCSS does it for the .vob format. > > This part of Kaplan's explanation made me livid. He endorses nonsense > and fairy tales made up by the plaintiffs. Sadly, Kaplan is correct on this point. To quote the Senate Committee report on the DMCA - "Section 1201(f) applies to computer programs as such, regardless of their medium of fixation, and not to works generally, such as music or audiovisual works, which may be fixed or distributed in digital form. ... The committe emphasizes that nothing in in those subsections can be read to authorize the circumvention of any technological protection measure that controls access to any work other than a computer program." The legislative history is pretty clear that the intent is to allow people to defeat access control where the user has no access to the actual program, not where the program is the access control. sam th sytobinh@uchicago.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 16:07:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14995 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:07:36 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14855 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:07:31 -0500 Received: from [38.32.91.235] (helo=ip235.bedford17.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12Lud0-0007Jo-00; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:07:54 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP is a declaration of war IMHO Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:07:03 GMT Message-ID: <38b0b448.14958296@mail.tiac.net> References: <200002182007.MAA03582@ns1.filetron.com> In-Reply-To: <200002182007.MAA03582@ns1.filetron.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id QAA14956 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:07:18 -0800, Rares wrote: >Three words: This Is War! how about "It's war, baby." --Bobby Shaftoe N. Stephenson Cryptonomicon, pg 48 [As I write, I'm looking at a Circuit City ad for a $179 Apex DVD player that boasts the ability to play up to 12 hours of MP3 music. So, as Dana says, the industry is not so monolithic. ] __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 16:08:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA15360 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:08:21 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA15353 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:08:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 2383 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Feb 2000 21:08:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20000218210841.2382.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:08:41 PST Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:08:41 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] CCIA supports changing DMCA to allow DVD playback To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The cryptome web site has a blurb submitted by the CCIA, whose members are the major corporations listed below, to the Library of Congress in response to the input request on the DMCA. Much of it discusses "The DVD Problem" and their reasoning is very supportive for our case. This rocks. http://cryptome.org/dmca-ccia.htm Computer & Communications Industry Association members: Amdahl Corporation AT&T Corporation Bell Atlantic Corporation Block Financial Corporation CAI/SISCo Cerebellum Software Commercial Data Servers, Inc. CommonRoad Corporation Datum, Inc. Entegrity Solutions Corporation Fujitsu Limited Giga Information Group Government Sales Consultants, Inc. Hitachi Data Systems, Inc. Intuit, Inc. MERANT NetCom Solutions International, Inc. NOKIA, Inc. Nortel Networks NTT America, Inc. Okidata Oracle Corporation Sun Microsystems, Inc. Tantivy Communications, Inc. Telesciences, Inc. Sabre Inc. TSI International Software, Ltd. VeriSign, Inc. Viatel, Inc. ViON Corporation Yahoo! Inc. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 17:04:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02071 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:04:05 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA02068 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:04:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 21076 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 21:59:36 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 21:59:36 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17342; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:04:25 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:04:25 -0800 Message-Id: <200002182204.OAA17342@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] When does prohibition result in illegal rights? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is kind of off topic and rambling but it bothers me to no end. So I figure this is the best place at the moment... Sorry about the distraction. Let me give you an idea what I'm talking about: Owning everything in the world is not a good thing(TM) because by definition everything of a certain type (production rights for example) in oplace, implies nothing of that same type (production rights) anywherelse. therefore if one owned all production rights no one else would have production rights. Now Rob hold your fire man :) Before you talk about if I work on this blah blah blah I have these rights... let me explain that that is not what I'm getting at, ok? :) I'm talking about the case when a small legal prohibition enhanced or multiplied many times implies an illegal right given to the prohibitor. Like copyright which I think in itself is a barely necessary evil. Just look at Japanese anime markets. They don't give a flying fig when fans write their own stories based on plagiarised characters. They correctly interpret that as free advertising. But anyway I digress. To put it differently: We have laws against harrassment because it is emotional harm that is as damaging as physical harm. However, we also have laws against mafia sponsored business protection fees which in fact is a form of strongarm harrassment used as a backdoor to infringe on people's rights to conduct a business. The question I'm asking is: Does the DMCA effectively support an organization that infringes on people's freedom of association? Does the HDCP encryption system cross a certain line? There was a question of what right the buyer has when purchasing a book or any distribution medium. My question is: Is there a proverbial "corner of the orchard" that belongs to the buyer and therefore such things are illegal? Like maybe the display itself since that is much like when one buys a notepad to write on you cannot tell a person that only one type of pen can legally be used w/ that notepad. Granted you may not be allowed to place someone else's logo on your own notepad design. Sorry for the ramble hope it was clear enough. Rares >> This is a truism of business schools, to be sure, rather a >> that faith that free market is a supreme good -- for those >> who operate it, lubricate it, ajudicate it, aggressively >> apologize for it, prevaricating blithely, "but, surely, everyone >> knows that stealing copyrighted material from creators >> is good for the copyright industry, but stealing from the >> anti-circumventioners is illegal, we know, we wrote >> the law, and shall rewrite it again as necessary." -- >> thus spake Jack Valenti, Harvard Business School >> and Political Bag Man. > >What is your reference for this quote? Do you have a link to it? > >I'd be very curious where exactly Valenti said this. This seems >awfully strong to have been said in public. > > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 17:09:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03233 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:09:30 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA03194 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:09:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 21397 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 22:05:04 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 22:05:04 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17780; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:09:53 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:09:53 -0800 Message-Id: <200002182209.OAA17780@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP is a declaration of war IMHO Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > >--- Rares Marian wrote: >> PS: How far is openlaw going to go once it clears the first 5-10 >> cases? Is it possible to pre-emptively create legislation that >> blocks this kind of abuse? > >I certainly hope so. A idea that I had was to create an alternative to >UCITA called something like the "Software Consumer Protection Act" and >then put it on the ballot for direct public vote in states where this >is allowed. I'm serious. Where's the mailing list? Oh and here as in my protest suggestions post the same early precautions apply. Don't wait for the media to get a hold of it. Bring it up yourselves. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 17:26:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07493 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:26:34 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA07489 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:26:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 22518 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 22:22:08 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 22:22:08 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA19491; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:26:57 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:26:57 -0800 Message-Id: <200002182226.OAA19491@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CCIA supports changing DMCA to allow DVD playback Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is /. worthy in my opinion. Rares (btw by the time you read this it will be posted :)) Bryan Taylor wrote: > >The cryptome web site has a blurb submitted by the CCIA, whose members >are the major corporations listed below, to the Library of Congress in >response to the input request on the DMCA. Much of it discusses "The >DVD Problem" and their reasoning is very supportive for our case. This >rocks. > >http://cryptome.org/dmca-ccia.htm > >Computer & Communications Industry Association members: > >Amdahl Corporation >AT&T Corporation >Bell Atlantic Corporation >Block Financial Corporation >CAI/SISCo >Cerebellum Software >Commercial Data Servers, Inc. >CommonRoad Corporation >Datum, Inc. >Entegrity Solutions Corporation >Fujitsu Limited >Giga Information Group >Government Sales Consultants, Inc. >Hitachi Data Systems, Inc. >Intuit, Inc. >MERANT >NetCom Solutions International, Inc. >NOKIA, Inc. >Nortel Networks >NTT America, Inc. >Okidata >Oracle Corporation >Sun Microsystems, Inc. >Tantivy Communications, Inc. >Telesciences, Inc. >Sabre Inc. >TSI International Software, Ltd. >VeriSign, Inc. >Viatel, Inc. >ViON Corporation >Yahoo! Inc. >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 17:47:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13772 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:47:03 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA13769 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:47:02 -0500 Received: (qmail 23682 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 22:42:37 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 22:42:37 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA21431; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:47:26 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:47:26 -0800 Message-Id: <200002182247.OAA21431@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Region codes A Devil's Advocate Production Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It takes time to finance and schedule advertising all over the world. The key is that they're not to protect advertising schedules. I mean in that case the sooner you sell the better. The real reason is not just maximum consumer awareness but also maximum consumer hysteria; everyone should be in the right mood when buying the product. So they have to wait for that "hormonal peak" so to speak. As Rob Warren pointed out earlier, some countries are scalper territories. They crank up prices in those countries which cuts down on goods sold to customers . I'm sure you could disprove even that after following the volleyball logic far enough, but no company has the patience to keep that volleyball in the air anyway, so they put in region codes. Finally there's the question of targeted content. The same script becomes two different movies. La Femme Nikita vs. the insufferable Point of No Return. Or again anime in the Orient. Content most people in the West would be shocked at, thrives in the East. If you're able to bring those down as well as put some good arguments up then we can talk. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 17:56:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA15379 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:56:47 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA15376 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:56:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 24236 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 22:52:22 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 22:52:22 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA22461; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:57:11 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:57:11 -0800 Message-Id: <200002182257.OAA22461@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: DVD summit Cc: "John P . Looney" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I posted a set of suggestions for protest planning to the dvd-discuss list awhile ago. Hope it's useful. Rares John P . Looney wrote: > Alan, myself and a few other troublemakers were considering organising >some sort of protest/press event at the upcoming DVD industry summit, >that's happening in Dublin in April[0]. The focus would be on highlighting >to the press what DeCSS is about, and the fact that alternative OSes don't >get a look-in to DVD without it. There's a fair chance that Jordan Hubbard >of FreeBSD fame may be in Ireland around that time, which would rock, if >we could grab a few hours of his time. > > Now that I'm working for a "news" style website company (no product yet, >but www.online.ie will kick ass in about three weeks time), I'm getting to >talk to all sorts of journalist types, and a few have said that they could >get the story into their publications (Wired, Irish times, Observer, and a >few other "maybes"). > > I was wondering if you know any people that were relatively well-known to >the press, that would be a) interested in taking part b) had a clue how to >run such a thing. > > Sorry to bother your hacking, > >Kate > >[0] http://www.dvdsummit.com/ > > > > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 19:13:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA31685 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:13:38 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA31682 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:13:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 21808 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Feb 2000 00:14:04 -0000 Message-ID: <20000219001404.21807.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:14:04 PST Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:14:04 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP is a declaration of war IMHO To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Rares Marian wrote: > >> PS: How far is openlaw going to go once it clears the first 5-10 > >> cases? Is it possible to pre-emptively create legislation that > >> blocks this kind of abuse? > > > >I certainly hope so. A idea that I had was to create an alternative > >to UCITA called something like the "Software Consumer Protection Act" > >and then put it on the ballot for direct public vote in states where > >this is allowed. > > I'm serious. Where's the mailing list? Oh and here as in my protest > suggestions post the same early precautions apply. Don't wait for > the media to get a hold of it. Bring it up yourselves. I think we've got to solve some technical problems first: we need better ways to run a documentation project. The tools people are using (eg SGML in the LDP) are too "hard" for general audiences. There is an urgent need for some kind of gui tool that can be used to facilitate group document writing in a way that uses a CVS-like copy-edit-merge strategy. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 20:02:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA10364 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:02:18 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA10361 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:02:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 12579 invoked by uid 502); 18 Feb 2000 03:19:15 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:19:15 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000217221915.I11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000218023658.26199.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000218023658.26199.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 06:36:58PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 06:36:58PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > This is a response to the points under 1) of the Devils Advocate > response submitted by dhudson on the message board: > http://eon.law.harvard.edu/HyperNews/get3/opendvd/4.html? > > 1)A) 1201(a)(3)(A) fails > > DMCA bars breaking an ACCESS CIRCUMVENTION SCHEME. The MPAA will > argue > that the license to "view" is not a license to break CSS and > decidedly > not a license to distribute DeCSS. > > Yes, I'm claiming there is no circumvention by the definition in > 1201(a)(3)(A), since the result of compiling DeCSS and then using the > executible is within the "view" copyright authority granted. You do not > need a licence to "break CSS" or to "distribute DeCSS". These are > covered under "right to liberty" unless they violate the law. I note > that the DVD copyright does NOT state that you may descrambe using > authorized players, so my arguement holds or you have no access, > period. You're ignoring part of 1201a3A. Here's the whole passage: "(A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner" I would say that the simple fact that the MPAA is suing over this sort of shows that this is being done without their authority. > > Ummm, No. The entire history of commercial software is filled with > source-code-less executables. DeCSS source code, once compiled, isn't > part of the executable. As such, it is not 'a component' of the > technology. The recipe is not a component of the cake. Also, no one is > accused of distributing DeCSS object code. Distributing LSD is illegal, > distributing the article on LSD synthesis is not. Um.. what exactly do you think the 2600 guys are being sued in New York for? It isn't over source code - read the transcript. Page 14, lines 14 through 21, I believe. This is most certainly over the DeCSS object code. Please, point to a court document from the New York hearing that says they're jumping on source code rather than the executable binary. The fact is, only the California case is fighting the source and the whitepaper, because that is/was a trade secret case. Completely different issues. The closest the New York hearing comes is trying to fuzz over the differences between object code and source, attributing the qualities of object code to source. They're most certainly attacking the executable binary of DeCSS. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 20:16:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14079 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:16:20 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA14060 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:16:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 14169 invoked by uid 502); 19 Feb 2000 01:20:06 -0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:20:06 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000218202006.K11768@linuxpower.org> References: <4.3.0.20000217204613.0244b710@pop.webcom.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <4.3.0.20000217204613.0244b710@pop.webcom.com> <20000217212821.G11768@linuxpower.org> <4.3.0.20000218004025.01f4a7f0@pop.webcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <4.3.0.20000218004025.01f4a7f0@pop.webcom.com>; from Declan McCullagh on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:43:00AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:43:00AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Rob, I know you're just repeating what you've read, and I don't mean to > make a big deal of this. I'm also leaving in a few hours for an encryption > conference, so I don't have a whole lot of time to spend on this. But I > think that what you've read is wrong. There was (and remains) an explicit > exemption in the regulations that allowed people to export > "copyright-protecting" crypto *without* approval. > > -Declan Do you by any chance have URL to the legal reference? I'd like to see it. I'm mostly drawing from a few trade magazine articles from 1996, in which a point that keeps coming back is concern about export regs and red tape. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 20:16:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14123 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:16:50 -0500 Received: from server.wilcoxon.org (WILCOXON.ORG [216.160.43.20]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14119 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:16:49 -0500 Received: from wilcoxon.org (unknown [192.168.2.1]) by server.wilcoxon.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D73567B for ; Fri, 18 Feb 1994 19:18:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <38ADEEF4.36F0E21B@wilcoxon.org> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:16:36 -0600 From: "Scot E. Wilcoxon" Organization: self X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12 i586) X-Accept-Language: pt-BR, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> <20000217212840.Q4856@cty-alum.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Don't all retail DVD players include a disk with a licensed CSS player, thus buying a retail DVD player does not avoid license fees? Does paying for a licensed player imply having authorized access? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 20:30:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA16578 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:30:03 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA16575 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:29:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 14177 invoked by uid 502); 19 Feb 2000 01:33:24 -0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:33:24 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000218203324.L11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> <88ip62$vu9$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <88ip62$vu9$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from David A. Wagner on Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:34:42PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:34:42PM -0800, David A. Wagner wrote: > In article <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org>, > wrote: > > [...] the reason Xing got broken was because they > > made a mistake by putting their key in plaintext. This didn't involve reverse > > engineering the algorithm or anything like that; someone just got stupid and > > it was downhill from there. > > I believe you are wrong. Every indication is that the CSS algorithm *was* > reverse engineered. Are you sure you understand how reverse engineering works? I may well be wrong. Lord knows there's been enough misinformation and outright bullshit handed out by both sides over the last few months. Yes, I am generally aware of how reverse engineering works. The general principle is to map out a function space, if that's what you want to call it, based on hypothetical assumptions of underlying function. You then attack the assumptions via experiment with the actual system. In time - less or more time, depending on the qualities of the system - you develop a function map that parallels the actual function of the system. Generally, reverse engineering is no different from scientific method. Do I win a cookie? ;) But for the moment, fine, I'll drop this line of argument. Your Honor, the plaintiff relinquishes the floor to defendent's counsel. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 20:42:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA18441 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:42:30 -0500 Received: from fb04.eng00.mindspring.net (fb04.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.200.170]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA18438 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:42:28 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniiom.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.75.22]) by fb04.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA22184 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:42:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002190142.UAA22184@fb04.eng00.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:36:53 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision In-Reply-To: <20000218202006.K11768@linuxpower.org> References: <4.3.0.20000218004025.01f4a7f0@pop.webcom.com> <4.3.0.20000217204613.0244b710@pop.webcom.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <4.3.0.20000217204613.0244b710@pop.webcom.com> <20000217212821.G11768@linuxpower.org> <4.3.0.20000218004025.01f4a7f0@pop.webcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rob Warren asked Declan: >Do you by any chance have URL to the legal reference? I'd like to see it. >I'm mostly drawing from a few trade magazine articles from 1996, in which >a point that keeps coming back is concern about export regs and red tape. Declan's laid up in a San Francisco opium den with PECSENC addicts, so here's a lead: Excerpted from the Export Administration Regulations http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html Search on "copyright" ----- Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 - Category 5 - Telecommunications and "Information Security" CATEGORY 5 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND "INFORMATION SECURITY" II. "Information Security" A. SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS List of Items Controlled This entry does not control: ... (d) Equipment where the cryptographic capability is not user-accessible and which is specially designed and limited to allow any of the following: (1) Execution of copy-protected "software"; (2) Access to any of the following: (a) Copy-protected read-only media; or (b) Information stored in encrypted form on media (e.g., in connection with the protection of intellectual property rights) where the media is offered for sale in identical sets to the public; or (3) One-time encryption of copyright protected audio/video data; ----- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 20:56:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21809 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:56:18 -0500 Received: from mailgw3.prontomail.com (mailgw3.prontomail.com [209.185.149.199]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21806 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:56:17 -0500 Received: from prontomail9.prontomail.com (209.185.149.109) by mailgw3.prontomail.com (NPlex 2.0.123) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:50:51 -0800 Received: from web40 (209.185.149.240) by prontomail9.prontomail.com (NPlex 2.0.123) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:48:13 -0800 From: "machine man" Message-Id: <187D08B4266E3D1178140005B8876857@machineman.acmecity.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:56:16 -0800 X-Priority: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Layman's explanation please? X-Mailer: Web Based Pronto Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hi all, I'm just a simple man, so most of the arguments in the transcript from the New York case escaped me. Can someone tell me if my story is straight? If I understand it properly, the act of reverse-engineering the DVD encryption scheme was not at issue. It was the fact that the Digital Millenium act somehow outlaws programs that break encryption of copyrighted material. So all the issues that the lawyers had were basically moot. And in fact, they didn't do certain things, like submit some papers that were required, and because of this, they couldn't present certain evidence. Does this happen often? My fundamental question is, how can source code be illegal? As far as I know, until it is compiled by a compiler, it doesn't do anything. It is a series of instructions. Are instructions really illegal? Aren't they protected by Freedom of Speech? If I wrote a book that step by step shows how to rape a man/woman, murder someone without being caught, rob a bank, no matter how vile that is, isn't that still protected under free speech? Thus, no matter how illegal the compiled program is, doesn't Free of Speech protect source code, since it is just a bunch of instructions? Wouldn't that make books like the Anarchist's cookbook, that tell you how to pick locks, and how to make bombs and drugs from banana peels, illegal? There is a world of difference between source code and the executable binary. The source code is basically neutered and can't do anything. You have to feed the source code to a compiler, and the compiler will interpret the code and create a binary based on this information. The binary is now illegal, but what about the source? A shotgun is legal in the US. You need a hacksaw to convert it into a sawed-off shotgun for use in a bank robbery. Is the original shotgun illegal? What about exact instructions on how to create the gun? What about the exact instructions on how to create the sawed-off shotgun, and how to commit a bank robbery? In fact, the art of compiling a program requires specific expertise, so it's not like anyone can just get the source and compile it. You need to know how to install a compiler. You need to know how to download the source, and install it. Is there some legal technicality that I'm missing? Sent by AcmeCity Mail From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 21:17:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA26148 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:17:39 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA26145 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:17:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 2527 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2000 02:13:13 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2000 02:13:13 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA04584; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 18:18:02 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 18:18:02 -0800 Message-Id: <200002190218.SAA04584@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP is a declaration of war IMHO Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >I think we've got to solve some technical problems first: we need >better ways to run a documentation project. The tools people are using >(eg SGML in the LDP) are too "hard" for general audiences. There is an >urgent need for some kind of gui tool that can be used to facilitate >group document writing in a way that uses a CVS-like copy-edit-merge strategy. I don't mean to bitch, but be more specific. I've dealt with people who couldn't deal with Microsoft Word because I changed the color scheme. They really couldn't even begin to type. The propblem is there's many GUI based tools. But when someone says it's all too hard, they never explain what exactly is too hard. They're vague about it, confused, and inconsistant, which is very frustrating when you try to help. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 18 22:46:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA18196 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:46:22 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA18145 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:46:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 5627 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2000 03:41:55 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2000 03:41:55 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA11761; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:46:43 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:46:43 -0800 Message-Id: <200002190346.TAA11761@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Layman's explanation please? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu machine man wrote: >Hi all, > >I'm just a simple man, so most of the arguments in the transcript > from the New York case escaped me. > >Can someone tell me if my story is straight? >If I understand it properly, the act of reverse-engineering the DVD >encryption scheme was not at issue. It was the fact that the Digital >Millenium act somehow outlaws programs that break encryption of >copyrighted material. So all the issues that the lawyers had were >basically moot. And in fact, they didn't do certain things, >like submit some papers that were required, and because of this, >they couldn't present certain evidence. Does this happen often? I think you got it pretty good. >My fundamental question is, how can source code be illegal? As far >as I know, until it is compiled by a compiler, it doesn't do >anything. It is a series of instructions. Are instructions >really illegal? Aren't they protected by Freedom of Speech? >If I wrote a book that step by step shows how to rape a man/woman, >murder someone without being caught, rob a bank, no matter how vile >that is, isn't that still protected under free speech? Thus, no >matter how illegal the compiled program is, doesn't Free of Speech >protect source code, since it is just a bunch of instructions? >Wouldn't that make books like the Anarchist's cookbook, that tell you >how to pick locks, and how to make bombs and drugs from banana peels, >illegal? > >There is a world of difference between source code and the executable >binary. The source code is basically neutered and can't do anything. >You have to feed the source code to a compiler, and the compiler will >interpret the code and create a binary based on this information. The >binary is now illegal, but what about the source? A shotgun is legal >in the US. You need a hacksaw to convert it into a sawed-off shotgun >for use in a bank robbery. Is the original shotgun illegal? What >about exact instructions on how to create the gun? What about the >exact instructions on how to create the sawed-off shotgun, and how to >commit a bank robbery? Exactly. Anything that can be discussed is free speech. When I discuss I copy a few lines and discuss in code. For example: Don't use this: if hour == 1 printf("1"); if hour == 2 printf("2"); Use this: printf("%d",hour); >In fact, the art of compiling a program requires specific expertise, >so it's not like anyone can just get the source and compile it. You need to know how to install a compiler. You need to know how to download the source, and install it. Art of compiling, heh. Installing is the "art" of moving files around. And telling the system where to expect them. That's all there is to it. Compiling involves a set of steps that for years have been aumated and reduced down to 3 commands. Easier than writing an email. ./configure automated automatically generated script for tuning the compilation for your machine. make Any easier than this and we'd all be sued by Nike make install Automated :) >Is there some legal technicality that I'm missing? Just popularised hype. :( I learned to program seriously at 14. Basic at 8. It's sasd few realize what a loss it is for future generations all these Luddite Revolution battlecries are. New technology? Yeah you need newlaws (hmm newspeak word...), donchaknow. A medium is a medium is a medium. Only capacity and performance improves. The rules don't change. Shoot I'm rambling. Sorry. > > >Sent by AcmeCity Mail Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 06:28:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA17643 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 06:28:38 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA17640 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 06:28:37 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.203] (helo=ip203.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12M84P-0002ca-00; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 06:29:05 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP is a declaration of war IMHO Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 11:28:16 GMT Message-ID: <38ae7c1e.443441@mail.tiac.net> References: <200002190218.SAA04584@ns1.filetron.com> In-Reply-To: <200002190218.SAA04584@ns1.filetron.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id GAA17641 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Regarding Intel's new spinoff.... http://www.digital-cp.com/data/draft_license.pdf A couple years ago Toshiba's Koji Hase called DVD "Pandora's Box." (http://eetimes.com/news/98/1016news/dvd.html) Now that the copy protection groups are getting ready to crank it up a notch for HDTV, we might call their bluff. If their true interest is protection for the artists and creators, we might insist on copy protection right throughout the production and post-production process.That means installing copy protection measures on every professional disk recorder and serial digital interface (basically, a high-end capture card.) These recorders are the fibre-channel RAID storage units used for telecine and DTV production.) Then artists could request copy protection as part of their contract. They might also become owners of their digital assets and only license their work to the studios. This would be equivalent to free agency for every director and performer. But this will never happen. Because this is not protection for artists, but, rather, against consumers. If you've ever seen a Madonna video before it was released, chances are it was dubbed off the board in a post-production studio. If production-level content becomes protected, the artists would have complete control over every minute of content. If they truly want to open Pandora's Box, we just might slam it on their thumbs. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 10:46:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA28218 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 10:46:57 -0500 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org (root@humbolt.geo.uu.nl [131.211.28.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA28215 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 10:46:56 -0500 Received: from agratax.demon.nl ([212.238.108.69]:4612 "EHLO agratax.demon.nl") by humbolt.nl.linux.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:45:58 +0100 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:20487 "EHLO localhost") by mirkwood.nl.linux.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:18:03 +0100 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:17:57 +0100 (CET) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@mirkwood.dummy.home To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA cannot hide behind DMCA to create antitrust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organisation: NL.linux.org (http://www.nl.linux.org/) X-Search-Engine-Bait: http://www.nl.linux.org/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 18 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > > Region codes don't currently discriminate against any state in the > > > US. They _could_, be wouldn't a court consider that possibility > > > merely speculative until it actually happens? > > > > What about Costa Rica? > > > > There seem to be some 4 million Spanish language US citizens > > there who won't be allowed to buy region 4 DVDs (and region > > 1 DVDs often don't contain their language). > > Do you mean Puerto Rico? Costa Rica is in Central America and > certainly not a US state. Ermm, yeah. Sorry to have confused the two... Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 13:11:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28021 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:11:14 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA28018 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:11:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 20017 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Feb 2000 18:11:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 10:11:42 PST Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 10:11:42 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > You're ignoring part of 1201a3A. Here's the whole passage: > > "(A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright > owner" I agree that descrambling occurs, so I don't see what I'm ignoring. I think the MPAA is ignoring the "without the authority" part. > I would say that the simple fact that the MPAA is suing over > this sort of shows that this is being done without their > authority. All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well what we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA can't retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright grant, even if they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've granted "home viewing", end of story. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 17:37:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02539 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:37:08 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA02536 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:37:06 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12MIVM-000Xq0-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:37:36 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Sat, 19 Feb 100 23:37:36 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> from "Bryan Taylor" at Feb 19, 0 10:11:42 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of > sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well what > we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA can't > retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright grant, even if > they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've granted "home viewing", > end of story. IANAL, but they may counter this with "But we didn't grant home copying, which authorised viewers don't allow." Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 17:59:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09336 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:59:59 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA09333 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:59:58 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA24216 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:00:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38AF2054.E2DFEDA@cdpage.com> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:59:32 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: > > All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of > > sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well what > > we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA can't > > retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright grant, even if > > they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've granted "home viewing", > > end of story. > > IANAL, but they may counter this with "But we didn't grant home copying, > which authorised viewers don't allow." > > Sham IANALE, but they don't have the right to grant or withhold the right to home copying. It's established in the AHRA. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 18:07:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA11007 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:07:36 -0500 Received: from mail.student.auckland.ac.nz (mail.student.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.201]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA11004 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:07:32 -0500 From: jas@cs.auckland.ac.nz Received: from gate.cs.auckland.ac.nz (itssgate.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.202]) by mail.student.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.3/8.8.6/cs-master) with SMTP id MAA14867 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:07:55 +1300 (NZDT) (sender jas@cs.auckland.ac.nz) Received: from ruru.cs.auckland.ac.nz by gate.cs.auckland.ac.nz (Sentinel-SMTP v0.9) with SMTP; Saturday, 19-Feb-00 23:06:15 GMT X-Charge-To: jas X-Original-Host: ruru.cs.auckland.ac.nz X-Authenticated: Sentinel-SMTP v0.9 on smtp.student.auckland.ac.nz Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:07:55 +1300 (NZDT) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 19 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of > > sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well what > > we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA can't > > retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright grant, even if > > they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've granted "home viewing", > > end of story. > > IANAL, but they may counter this with "But we didn't grant home copying, > which authorised viewers don't allow." > > Sham That maybe the case, but the fact that a piece of software CAN be used for some (allegedly illegal) use, need not mean it was intented to. Its like the difference between letter openers and flick knives - although both can be used to give someone a fatal case of death, one is (perhaps) designed for it, and the other isn't. (And either way, the designers or manufacturers of either product aren't taken to court for the potentially illegal acts their creations can be used for -- the folks who use them in this way are.) My two generic centicredits worth. JaS From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 18:20:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA14540 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:20:43 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA14537 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:20:42 -0500 Received: (qmail 25342 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2000 23:16:23 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2000 23:16:23 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAB04985; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:21:09 -0800 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:21:09 -0800 Message-Id: <200002192321.PAB04985@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: >> All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of >> sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well what >> we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA can't >> retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright grant, even if >> they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've granted "home viewing", >> end of story. > >IANAL, but they may counter this with "But we didn't grant home copying, >which authorised viewers don't allow." IANALE, but I think that one is a collapsible(or deflatable) argument as well. What exactly are authorised players? I mean say I have a DVD player and a VCR, what then? Mr. Valenti give it up. :) Content is content, media are media, and laws are laws. Laws especially cannot contradict themselves. >Sham Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 18:38:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA18661 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:38:16 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA18658 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:38:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 25828 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2000 23:33:56 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2000 23:33:56 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA06071; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:38:42 -0800 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:38:42 -0800 Message-Id: <200002192338.PAA06071@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Are we going in circles? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu jas@cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: >> IANAL, but they may counter this with "But we didn't grant home copying, >> which authorised viewers don't allow." >> >> Sham > >That maybe the case, but the fact that a piece of software CAN be used for >some (allegedly illegal) use, need not mean it was intented to. Its like >the difference between letter openers and flick knives - although both can >be used to give someone a fatal case of death, one is (perhaps) designed >for it, and the other isn't. (And either way, the designers or >manufacturers of either product aren't taken to court for the potentially >illegal acts their creations can be used for -- the folks who use them in >this way are.) > >My two generic centicredits worth. >JaS > We're here again. Not a bad point to be at. But again? Methinks we should get a list of the latest points: 1. The tool is not equal to the act 2. Anything that we can be an integral(nonremovable) part of a discussion is speech. This includes source because source not only can be but is an integral part of discussion in project forums all over the world. (To think I couldn't provide examples of that w/o open source development and free software... scary.) Anyone need mnore arguments here? To think in no way implies action. Leave that to fundies. Or to put it another way innocent until proven guilty. Premeditation is only valuable as a qualifying point after the act has been done or attempted. Note: Demonstration in discussion is not equal to acting out the demonstration. Even then acting out the demonstration is not illegal if the demonstration only a harmless demonstration. If you shoot at a dummy in court, it may be tasteless and tactless but not illegal. If you break into a computer that happens to be a demonstration piece or someone's actual system but no harm is done, it is not illegal. 3. Region codes... do we have any consensus on this? There's more I'll have to look back through the posts. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 19:06:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA24391 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:06:08 -0500 Received: from mail.student.auckland.ac.nz (mail.student.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.201]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA24388 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:06:05 -0500 From: jas@cs.auckland.ac.nz Received: from gate.cs.auckland.ac.nz (itssgate.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.202]) by mail.student.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.3/8.8.6/cs-master) with SMTP id NAA16674 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:06:32 +1300 (NZDT) (sender jas@cs.auckland.ac.nz) Received: from ruru.cs.auckland.ac.nz by gate.cs.auckland.ac.nz (Sentinel-SMTP v0.9) with SMTP; Sunday, 20-Feb-00 00:04:52 GMT X-Charge-To: jas X-Original-Host: ruru.cs.auckland.ac.nz X-Authenticated: Sentinel-SMTP v0.9 on smtp.student.auckland.ac.nz Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:06:32 +1300 (NZDT) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Are we going in circles? In-Reply-To: <200002192338.PAA06071@ns1.filetron.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > To think in no way implies action. Leave that to fundies. Or to put it another way innocent until proven guilty. Premeditation is only valuable as a qualifying point after the act has been done or attempted. > > Note: Demonstration in discussion is not equal to acting out the > demonstration. Even then acting out the demonstration is not illegal > if the demonstration only a harmless demonstration. If you shoot at a > dummy in court, it may be tasteless and tactless but not illegal. If > you break into a computer that happens to be a demonstration piece or > someone's actual system but no harm is done, it is not illegal. > Just a point. It is illegal to "break into" a computer, irrelevant of the amount of harm done. But this in no way detracts from the very valid point you make that demonstration in discussion is not equal to acting out the demonstration. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 19:15:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA26275 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:15:14 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA26272 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:15:12 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA16961 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:14:14 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA06293; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:38:38 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Date: 19 Feb 2000 15:37:32 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 34 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88n9fs$64k$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> <88ip62$vu9$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000218203324.L11768@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000218203324.L11768@linuxpower.org>, wrote: > Yes, I am generally aware of how reverse engineering works. The general principle > is to map out a function space, if that's what you want to call it, based on > hypothetical assumptions of underlying function. You then attack the assumptions > via experiment with the actual system. In time - less or more time, depending > on the qualities of the system - you develop a function map that parallels the > actual function of the system. Generally, reverse engineering is no different > from scientific method. Well, I suppose we can say that the general act of `reverse engineering' can be done in a number of ways. Here are two examples: 1. Treat the crypto as a black box. Prod it with some carefully-chosen inputs, watch how the outputs behave, and make some inferences in this way. (this seems to be the approach you were describing above) 2. Treat the _implementation_ as a transparent box. Disassemble. Observe internal values in the middle of processing, set breakpoints, tread on internal data structures, whatever. There are probably others, too; I haven't tried to be exhaustive. Note that approach #1 above can be defeated by using sufficiently high-quality crypto (e.g., Triple-DES). Approach #2 can _never_ be defeated, if the crypto is implemented on an untrusted platform that the adversary has full control over (e.g., software players). Consequently, if you want to prevent reverse engineering, it is not enough to just use strong crypto: one must also implement on truly tamperproof hardware. (And prevent timing attacks, power analysis, etc.) So you can't blame DVD insecurity solely on export controls: the decision to distribute software players is a huge contributor (some would argue, perhaps the primary contributor). The mere fact that the DVD industry decided to build software players is enough to tell you that their solution is necessarily insecure in the face of a motivated or knowledgeable attacker. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 19:50:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA32429 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:50:34 -0500 Received: from draco.tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA32426 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:50:33 -0500 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12MGiJ-0000Qg-00 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 14:42:51 -0600 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 14:42:51 -0600 (CST) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu However, when you play a DVD on a licensed player, you are essentially making a copy of the movie on your TV screen. Even with a licensed player, nothing stops the user from pointing a camcorder at the TV while it is playing. Or making a copy with a macrovision-free VCR. It's just impracticle to do that - much in the same way as it is impracticle to copy DVDs. The "big deal" is that it won't be impracticle for long... I don't understand how the MPAA can get away with producing devices that prevent your already legal rights to "media-shift" your products... I don't know much of anything about law, but didn't Sony vs Betamax rule that media shifting was "fair use"? How do you take away someone's legal rights to use products and get away with it? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA / <_/ / / < / (_ > All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of > > sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well what > > we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA can't > > retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright grant, even if > > they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've granted "home viewing", > > end of story. > > IANAL, but they may counter this with "But we didn't grant home copying, > which authorised viewers don't allow." > > Sham > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 22:19:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA30229 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:19:52 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA30226 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:19:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 531 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2000 03:15:29 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 03:15:29 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA17200; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:20:15 -0800 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:20:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200002200320.TAA17200@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Are we going in circles? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu jas@cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > >> To think in no way implies action. Leave that to fundies. Or to put it another way innocent until proven guilty. Premeditation is only valuable as a qualifying point after the act has been done or attempted. >> >> Note: Demonstration in discussion is not equal to acting out the >> demonstration. Even then acting out the demonstration is not illegal >> if the demonstration only a harmless demonstration. If you shoot at a >> dummy in court, it may be tasteless and tactless but not illegal. If >> you break into a computer that happens to be a demonstration piece or >> someone's actual system but no harm is done, it is not illegal. >> > >Just a point. It is illegal to "break into" a computer, irrelevant of the >amount of harm done. I meant as part of a court demo. It would be illegal to destroy the computer or the OS itself in the proces.. But shooting a dummy in court would just be stupid, not illegal. >But this in no way detracts from the very valid point you make that >demonstration in discussion is not equal to acting out the demonstration. > Incidentally, Rob Wareen, what do you think? You're the hardest to convince and I'm basing the strength of my arguments on that. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 22:27:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA31827 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:27:10 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA31824 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:27:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 15850 invoked by uid 502); 20 Feb 2000 03:27:23 -0000 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:27:23 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000219222723.N11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> <88ip62$vu9$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000218203324.L11768@linuxpower.org> <88n9fs$64k$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <88n9fs$64k$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from David A. Wagner on Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 03:37:32PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 03:37:32PM -0800, David A. Wagner wrote: > In article <20000218203324.L11768@linuxpower.org>, > wrote: > > Yes, I am generally aware of how reverse engineering works. The general principle > > is to map out a function space, if that's what you want to call it, based on > > hypothetical assumptions of underlying function. You then attack the assumptions > > via experiment with the actual system. In time - less or more time, depending > > on the qualities of the system - you develop a function map that parallels the > > actual function of the system. Generally, reverse engineering is no different > > from scientific method. > > Well, I suppose we can say that the general act of `reverse engineering' > can be done in a number of ways. Here are two examples: > 1. Treat the crypto as a black box. Prod it with some carefully-chosen > inputs, watch how the outputs behave, and make some inferences in this > way. (this seems to be the approach you were describing above) > 2. Treat the _implementation_ as a transparent box. Disassemble. > Observe internal values in the middle of processing, set breakpoints, > tread on internal data structures, whatever. > There are probably others, too; I haven't tried to be exhaustive. You didn't say whether I won a cookie. :( Most of the papers I've seen on the topic have addressed reverse engineering as basically method #1. I'm fairly sure - just based on what I've read - that the CSS break didn't use the "zen mind" Method #1 approach, which essentially starts with the assumption that you know nothing about the internal mechanism and that you're hypothesizing the function space. Code disassembly may well constitute reverse engineering in a lot of techie's eyes, and from a purely practical standpoint there's little difference between it and Method #1. But to a non-techie judge, the argument here can be made that the difference between "blank slate" reverse engineering is different from taking it apart and analyzing it byte for byte, in the same way that solving the tumblers on a safe lock is a bit different from removing the back of the safe. I suspect, though, that the real problem in trying to claim a reverse engineering exemption is the fact that clean-room methodology was almost certainly not followed. If it was followed, it was in no way documented in any that would stand up in court. While practically it would still be "reverse engineering", it may not be legitimate RE in the eyes of the law. Can anyone show legal references to what exactly RE is in the eyes of the law? I think we're all sort of guessing here. > So you can't blame DVD insecurity solely on export controls: the decision to > distribute software players is a huge contributor (some would argue, perhaps > the primary contributor). The mere fact that the DVD industry decided to > build software players is enough to tell you that their solution is > necessarily insecure in the face of a motivated or knowledgeable attacker. No doubt. I certainly wasn't blaming export controls for the whole thing. But the fact remains that according to the trade journals of the time, a key factor in the adoption of CSS over a more secure crypto scheme was concern over export regulations and being tied up in government red tape. Now of course you can take the "black helicopters" approach to this and see those trade articles as part of this massive MPAA New World Order conspiracy. I don't; based on prior experience with the corporate bureaucratic mind, I have no problem believing this was exactly what happened. It really didn't matter whether an exemption existed. The fear would be enough. More on Monday. I work weekends, so don't have time to wade through all my mail. Ya'll have a good weekend - give a Windows user DeCSS today! :) (God, that sounds almost like a communicable disease.) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 22:31:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA32726 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:31:12 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA32722 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:31:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 928 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2000 03:26:52 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 03:26:52 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA17793; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:31:38 -0800 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:31:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200002200331.TAA17793@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: > >--------------2F846BFEFC4E7DD4D5C5C86E >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Rares Marian wrote: > >> Mr. Valenti give it up. :) >> Content is content, media are media, and laws are laws. Laws especially cannot contradict themselves. > >This is too weird. Here are the last two lines from my latest contribution to an argument I am having on another >list, with a Valenti-clone who just told me "It's an apples and oranges comparison because you and your >publishers really don't stand to lose very much" (from the fact that there are plenty of ways to infringe my >copyrights, but I'm not asking anyone to give them special protection like the MPAA is) > > >> However, my publishers and I do not lobby for special legislation to provide extra protection >> >> for our content, nor do we expect others to go to unreasonable and futile ends to protect our >> >> content. >> >> Content is content, copyright is copyright. And I'll put the lasting value of any of my books >> >> up against Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot with no qualms whatsoever. ;-) >> Yikes! A Valenti clone on our side? I guess age matters. Damn it, the older you get the more distant from reality. By the way the reply is warped. Is that Netscape causing the double display? Now that is weird. Rares > > > > > > >-- >Dana J. Parker >Consultant >http://www.cdpage.com >Contributing editor/standards columnist >Emedia magazine >http://www.emediapro.net >DVD PRO Conference Chair >http://www.dvdpro.net >I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression >http://www.eff.org/cafe > >mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com > > >--------------2F846BFEFC4E7DD4D5C5C86E >Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > >Rares Marian wrote: >
Mr. Valenti give it up. :) >
Content is content, media are media, and laws are laws. Laws >especially cannot contradict themselves.
>This is too weird. Here are the last two lines from my latest contribution >to an argument I am having on another >
list, with a Valenti-clone who just told me "It's an apples and oranges >comparison because you and your >
publishers really don't stand to lose very much" (from the fact >that there are plenty of ways to infringe my >
copyrights, but I'm not asking anyone to give them special protection >like the MPAA is) >
>
>
However, my publishers and I do not lobby for special legislation to provide extra protection
>
> >
>
for our content, nor do we expect others to go to unreasonable and futile ends to protect our
>
> >
>
content.
>
>Content is content, copyright is copyright. And I'll put the lasting value of any of my books
>
> >
>
 up against Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot with no qualms whatsoever. ;-)
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>

-- >
Dana J. Parker >
Consultant >
http://www.cdpage.com >
Contributing editor/standards columnist >
Emedia magazine >
http://www.emediapro.net >
DVD PRO Conference Chair >
http://www.dvdpro.net >
I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression >
http://www.eff.org/cafe >

mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com >
> >--------------2F846BFEFC4E7DD4D5C5C86E-- > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 19 22:34:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA01227 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:34:46 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA01224 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:34:42 -0500 Received: (qmail 15862 invoked by uid 502); 20 Feb 2000 03:38:31 -0000 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:38:31 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Are we going in circles? Message-ID: <20000219223831.O11768@linuxpower.org> References: <200002192338.PAA06071@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002192338.PAA06071@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 03:38:42PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 03:38:42PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > jas@cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > >> IANAL, but they may counter this with "But we didn't grant home copying, > >> which authorised viewers don't allow." > >> > >> Sham > > > >That maybe the case, but the fact that a piece of software CAN be used for > >some (allegedly illegal) use, need not mean it was intented to. Its like > >the difference between letter openers and flick knives - although both can > >be used to give someone a fatal case of death, one is (perhaps) designed > >for it, and the other isn't. (And either way, the designers or > >manufacturers of either product aren't taken to court for the potentially > >illegal acts their creations can be used for -- the folks who use them in > >this way are.) > > > >My two generic centicredits worth. > >JaS > > > > We're here again. Not a bad point to be at. But again? Methinks we should > get a list of the latest points: Or not. I think by now we've all figured out what the points are. What bothers me here is that there are a lot of us who are still preaching to the choir, when we shouldn't be preaching at all. Part of the problem that led to the two court failures, IMHO, was the infallible belief on the part of a lot of Linux people (myself included) that success was inevitable. It left us blind and vulnerable, and a lot of that blindness is still with us. It's more fun to simply bash Valenti (or attributing false quotes to him, as someone here was apparently doing) than it is to consider the possibility for a moment that these people are not evil, that they're basically normal people, and that they're not stupid. I've been arguing a lot of MPAA positions here. I haven't been doing that because I necessarily believe in them, but because they'll probably be thrown at us in court. We need answers to them, and throwing around "reverse engineering is exempt" lines and then walking away doesn't give us any new material. Only part of a good chess game is working out your strategy. A lot of the game is anticipating - or reverse engineering, if you will - your opponents game so that you can better exploit it's weaknesses. I'm sensing a general reluctance to do that, possibly because some are afraid of giving them ideas, possibly because it makes folks feel like traitors. But it's something we need to do if we want to win this. So let me ask a general question to the entire forum: if you were an MPAA lawyer, and you were really smart and determined to win this, what case would you be putting together right now? What points would you be prepared to make? Let's take a break from the pro-DeCSS lovefest (however much that we might enjoy it :)) and step into the dark side for a second. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 01:08:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA29300 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:08:10 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA29297 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:08:09 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA20376 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:07:11 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA06380; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:31:35 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Date: 19 Feb 2000 21:30:29 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 15 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88nu5l$67b$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000218203324.L11768@linuxpower.org> <88n9fs$64k$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000219222723.N11768@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000219222723.N11768@linuxpower.org>, wrote: > I suspect, though, that the real problem in trying to claim a reverse > engineering exemption is the fact that clean-room methodology was almost > certainly not followed. What do you mean by `clean-room'? It is not obvious to me what that phrase would mean in the context of reverse engineering, e.g., of disassembling code to yield a conceptual algorithm. Or are you suggesting that DeCSS itself should have been implemented using a documented clean-room process, where one places a Chinese Wall between the folks who do the reverse engineering and the folks who do the re-implementation? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 02:02:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA06576 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:02:19 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA06572 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:02:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 29249 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Feb 2000 07:02:49 -0000 Message-ID: <20000220070249.29248.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.30.67.51] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:02:49 PST Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:02:49 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Sham Gardner wrote: >> All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of >> sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well >> what we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA >> can't retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright >> grant, even if they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've >> granted "home viewing", end of story. > IANAL, but they may counter this with "But we didn't grant home > copying, which authorised viewers don't allow." Home copying is fair use, so they did authorize it by putting the little circled 'c' on their product. This isn't their arguement, though. They're claiming DeCSS is access control circumvention technology. My point is that they authorized home viewing in the DVD copyright notice, so the 'circumvention' part fails: DeCSS is alternative technology for authorized access. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 02:14:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA09193 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:14:00 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA09190 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:13:59 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.217] (helo=ip217.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12MQZY-0002Ov-00; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:14:29 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:13:05 GMT Message-ID: <38bc90eb.71315751@mail.tiac.net> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id CAA09191 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Would a version of LiViD that doesn't decrypt the content be a good exhibit? Do we have the right to watch the scrambled content? Maybe this will come in handy one day(?) Boy the dark side is really _dark_! [I will try to come up with some practical notions, as if I were flipping burgers for the studio canteen. Bogie likes em burnt!] Nothing serious below here--just more black helicopters and Jack Ruby's diary. And it's all courtesy of... Registrant: Digital Content Protection LLC (DIGITAL-CP-DOM) Intel Corporation JF2-53 2111 NE 25th Ave Hillsboro, OR 97124-5961 US Domain Name: DIGITAL-CP.COM -------------cut here------------ 4. Compliance Rules for Display Devices. The Rules set out in this Section 4 apply to Licensed Products with respect to their Display Functions. 4.1. No Copies. A Display Device shall not make, or support the making of, any copies of CP Video or Decrypted CP Video for any purpose. 4.2. Temporary Buffering. CP Video and Decrypted CP Video may be temporarily buffered to enable the Display Function. However, it shall not persist for more time than necessary to perform the Display Functions. 4.3. Permitted Outputs of CP Video. As set forth in more detail below, a Display Device shall not pass Decrypted CP Video, whether in digital or analog form, to any output whatsoever except as expressly described and permitted below. 4.4. Digital Outputs. Licensed Products shall not permit the output of Decrypted CP Video through digital connections, except where such connections are part of a Repeater Function. 4.5. No Analog Outputs. A Licensed Product shall not permit the output of Decrypted CP Video in any analog representation. 4.6. Unique Keys. Each Display Functions shall use a unique Key Selection Vector and set of Device Keys. 5. Compliance Rules for Source Functions. 5.1. No Content Limitations. There are no limitations relating to the type of content that may be encrypted as CP Video. 5.2. Additional Requirements. Adopters are advised that other content protection and conditional access system may apply additional requirements on the implementation of DHCP including, but not limited to, robust delivery of VRLs to Source Functions and verifying, in a robust manner, that DHCP is operational on a specific DVI output. 5.3. Unique Keys. All Display Functions must use a unique Key Selection Vector and set of Device Keys except where the Adopter request and meets the conditions for use of Shared Keys. 6. Compliance Rules for Repeater Functions. 6.1. Digital Outputs. Repeater Function may only support DVI outputs when using DHCP in accordance with this Agreement and the Specification. 6.2. Permitted Functions. A Repeater Function may optionally perform image processing functions and/or provide a Display Function. 6.3. Unique Keys. All Repeater Functions must use a unique Key Selection Vector and set of Device Keys for the CP Video input as well as separate, unique Key Selection Vectors and sets of Device Keys for each output. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 02:37:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA12375 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:37:13 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA12372 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:37:12 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id XAA03387 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:36:57 -0800 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:36:57 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000219233657.B4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <38bc90eb.71315751@mail.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <38bc90eb.71315751@mail.tiac.net>; from rongus@tiac.net on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:13:05AM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ron Gustavson writes: > Would a version of LiViD that doesn't decrypt the content be a > good exhibit? Do we have the right to watch the scrambled content? > Maybe this will come in handy one day(?) Well, it's hard to play the content without decrypting it because the encrypted content is compressed (MPEG, among other things). Without decrypting it, you don't have meaningful video data. Without decrypting it, you can't decompress it (the encrypted MPEGs are no longer valid MPEGs, I assume), and without decompressing it, you can't find so much as a single pixel. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 02:57:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA14932 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:57:30 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA14929 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:57:29 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.217] (helo=ip217.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12MRFf-0002oT-00; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:57:59 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Xing hack is enough Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:56:34 GMT Message-ID: <38bf9c3d.74213366@mail.tiac.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id CAA14930 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [sleeping with the enemy...] Isn't distributing what was well known as a hack of the Xing player enough to hang 'em high? (when did this info become commonplace?) Is linking a unilateral act? Or does it create a mutual liability? (What was the upshot of the CNN vs. allnews.com framing spat?) Linux users can do without drivers for a Winmodem and have to sign license agreements to install, say, WordPerfect. Why not wait until RedHat licenses a DVD viewer, or ATI provides one? And give me more than it's the culture, stoopid. (this is _so_ distasteful!) The Windows EXE is said to be a byproduct of the quest for UDF support. Then after DeCSS.zip was widely distributed, UDF support came to Linux. How convenient is this chronology? Did this really occur this way? more to come... __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 03:24:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA18654 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 03:24:32 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA18651 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 03:24:31 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6E68E76F2; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:25:28 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:17:43 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <38bc90eb.71315751@mail.tiac.net> <20000219233657.B4856@cty-alum.org> In-Reply-To: <20000219233657.B4856@cty-alum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022002252800.01235@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I presume he's refering to versions that can pipe the decrypted video directly into a MPEG decoder so that it is played as a continuous video stream, without making any files containing the decrypted video. This would demonstrate that DeCSS (or a functional equivalent) serves as an integral part of DVD viewing technology for linux and can be used without even coming close to infringing copyright by copying the decrypted video to a file. It would probably be a good demonstration, but I'm not sure that it matters much from a legal standpoint. It still "circumvents" the access control aspect of CSS though. Thats the part that will be more difficult to argue. > Well, it's hard to play the content without decrypting it because the > encrypted content is compressed (MPEG, among other things). Without > decrypting it, you don't have meaningful video data. > > Without decrypting it, you can't decompress it (the encrypted MPEGs > are no longer valid MPEGs, I assume), and without decompressing it, you > can't find so much as a single pixel. > > -- > Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I > Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will > down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Call on God, but row away from the rocks. -- Indian proverb From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 04:16:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA24885 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 04:16:33 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA24855 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 04:16:21 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.217] (helo=ip217.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12MSTs-0003hB-00; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 04:16:44 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:15:15 GMT Message-ID: <38c0ae61.78858243@mail.tiac.net> References: <38bc90eb.71315751@mail.tiac.net> <20000219233657.B4856@cty-alum.org> <00022002252800.01235@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> In-Reply-To: <00022002252800.01235@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id EAA24856 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:17:43 -0600, you wrote: >I presume he's refering to versions that can pipe the decrypted video directly >into a MPEG decoder so that it is played as a continuous video stream, without >making any files containing the decrypted video. This would demonstrate that >DeCSS (or a functional equivalent) serves as an integral part of DVD viewing >technology for linux and can be used without even coming close to infringing >copyright by copying the decrypted video to a file. No, I was just spacing out,thinking that individual assets were scrambled, rather than the VOB, with its multiplexed navigation, audio, and assorted files. I see how you can't even get garbage out of it if that's encrypted. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 04:35:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA27691 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 04:35:18 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA27688 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 04:35:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 10930 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2000 09:30:59 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 09:30:59 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA32243; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:35:45 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:35:45 -0800 Message-Id: <200002200935.BAA32243@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu What the hell does Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol have to do w/ any of this? > 6.1. Digital Outputs. Repeater Function may only support DVI outputs when > using DHCP in accordance with this Agreement and the Specification. > 6.2. Permitted Functions. A Repeater Function may optionally perform image > processing functions and/or provide a Display Function. > 6.3. Unique Keys. All Repeater Functions must use a unique Key Selection > Vector and set of Device Keys for the CP Video input as well as separate, > unique Key Selection Vectors and sets of Device Keys for each output. > >__________no-∞-do__________ Boy and they expect us to follow a spec they can't even write? Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 04:44:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA28818 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 04:44:31 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA28815 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 04:44:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 11202 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2000 09:40:13 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 09:40:13 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA32612; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:44:59 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:44:59 -0800 Message-Id: <200002200944.BAA32612@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Time to dance with the devil. Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Try playing the MPAA on these: Region codes are useful for cultural reasons (xrated content is normal in other countries), managing important release schedules, and diverting distribution away from scalpers in different countries. Region codes are irrelevant to the case... Defend their side thenm take it down. DeCSS is circumvention. Build their case then introduce some other points before you attack. Speech is irrelevant (not easy for them to get away with but they might try). Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 07:33:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA30811 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:33:15 -0500 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org (root@humbolt.geo.uu.nl [131.211.28.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA30808 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:33:13 -0500 Received: from agratax.demon.nl ([212.238.108.69]:28423 "EHLO agratax.demon.nl") by humbolt.nl.linux.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:30:13 +0100 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:26375 "EHLO localhost") by mirkwood.nl.linux.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:26:37 +0100 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:26:34 +0100 (CET) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@mirkwood.dummy.home To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: feedback@opendvd.org Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: Questions from a Journalist (fwd) Message-ID: Organisation: NL.linux.org (http://www.nl.linux.org/) X-Search-Engine-Bait: http://www.nl.linux.org/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hi, attached is a piece from a journalist who has *really* done his homework before writing an article. If you feel like it, please review the piece for him :) Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:38:19 -0500 From: Sandeep S. Atwal To: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Questions from a Journalist Rik, Many thanks for all your help. I hope we can work together in the future. If I have any Linux or Open Source questions, I'll be coming to you. Below is the final piece. It's not up on a website yet, but may still be. I'll let you know. Please forward this piece to all interested parties. I would like to get some feedback. Take care, Sandy The Criminal Code MPAA freaks over DVD security hack By Sandeep Atwal If the media outlets who swiftly blamed hackers for last week¹s Denial of Service (DoS) attacks had bothered to conduct the most rudimentary of research, they would have found that the web¹s prime hacker organizations were the harshest critics of last week¹s infantile blitz that swamped online businesses including e-bay, e-trade and amazon.com. The vilification of hackers is based on a Hollywood fantasy rather than a fair and intelligent examination of the communities in question. In reality, organized hacker groups represent one of the most politically aware and intelligent of the web¹s virtual groups, more adept than most at understanding the political and cultural implications of modern technology. A random issue of 2600, The Hacker Quarterly is just as likely to print reverse engineering tips as it is a well-structured argument in defense of individual freedom in an era of increasing commercialization and decreasing privacy. Skewed coverage of events such as the DoS attacks diverts attention from issues with more wide-ranging ramifications. While everybody heard about e-bay going down, few know the case of 16-year-old Norwegian Jon Johansen and his group, Masters of Reverse Engineering. They wrote the DeCSS code that unscrambles the encryption on DVDs. While the move allows Linux users to view DVDs (a previously impossible feat since DVDs were never designed for those using Linux), it also allows copying of the material on the DVD. The DeCSS source code was up on websites late last year, available for download. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), unsurprisingly, reacted with a barrage of injunctions banning distributors from posting the program on their sites. In a chilling New World Order move, the long arm of the MPAA stretched to Norway where Johansen and his father were arrested by local authorities. If all this seems like a hacker-only issue, Rik Van Riel, a professional Linux developer is quick to point out the anti-consumer elements of DVD¹s current software conventions. DVDs are encoded with a region code which prohibits DVDs bought in one region from playing on machines from another area. Without the DeCSS code, argues Riel, ³people who buy their DVDs in another country (e.g. because they're on holiday) come home and find out that they cannot play those DVDs [at home]. Foreign language students cannot watch movies in the language they are studying. Spanish-language people in the U.S. [or Canada] aren't allowed to buy their DVDs in a Spanish language country. If the region 1 version of the movie is without Spanish soundtrack, they can't watch the movie in their own language!² ³In all the above examples it's clear that the consumer hasn't done anything wrong,² explains Riel, ³If I buy a DVD of a movie, that DVD disk is mine and I can do with it as I please, as long as I don't give copies to other people‹which is about the only illegal thing you can do with a copyrighted work. Instead, the movie industry is trying to fool people into thinking that they can determine what I do with the movie I just bought.² ³Instead of trying to become more competitive,² he claims, ³the movie industry tries to take away consumer's rights by using an access control mechanism. When people break the access control they try to convince people that it really is about ³copy control² so they can have their access control reinstated. All of this [comes] at the consumer's expense.² While the MPAA attempts to build an anti-piracy argument against the DeCSS code, that argument has already been rejected by the pro-DeCSS crowd. As they correctly point out, widespread piracy is done using professional DVD mastering equipment. The DeCSS doesn¹t help them since they don't need to decrypt the DVD they're copying. The access control is only built in to consumer grade equipment. Without a DVD burner, the only copying you can do with the DeCSS code is onto a regular CD. But since CDs only hold 650MB, to place the full 17 gigabytes of information onto regular CD would take up about 20 CDs. If the film was 90 minutes, you¹d be changing CDs roughly every four and a half minutes. The real advantage for consumers Riel sees is that, ³If DeCSS is found to be legal, electronics equipment manufacturers are free to manufacture and sell DVD players that allow consumers to watch any movie from all over the world. ³It will also mean an end to the artificial restrictions that are put on consumers. Nobody wants to be ripped off or artificially restricted in their choice. International copyright law is very clear in what consumer's rights are. The movie industry should not try to take away consumer's rights by (flawed) technological tricks,² adds Riel. Bruce Turnbull, a lawyer for DVD-CCA‹the organization that built the original CSS code‹rejects the open source argument outright. ³I think that the arguments that have been posted are wrong. I don¹t think there¹s any merit to any of the arguments that I¹ve heard so far,² states Turnbull flatly. But even Turnbull admits that there¹s not a lot the MPAA can really do about the fact that thousands of copies may already be on hard drives all over the world. The MPAA has only had limited success so far banning mirror sites. At last count, www.2600.com had links to over 400 sites that mirror the 57K DeCSS code. ³Well, we¹re certainly aware what was going on when the code was posted. . .that it was being downloaded,² Turnbull admits. ³I don¹t think millions of consumers have [downloaded the code]. The point with the injunctions was to make the legal argument to the public, to people who might be interested in doing this and to contain the damage to a narrow area,² he explains. How narrow that area actually is may be difficult to determine. The open DVD software has been downloaded from www.opendvd.org has served well over a hundred thousand copies. Considering the fact that the DVD-CCA lawsuit mentioned 500 John Does, some of which have over a hundred times the number of hits a day OpenDVD.org has, and managed to mention them before any of the publicity had started, anywhere between 3 and 10 million copies of DeCSS and other open DVD software may have been downloaded. Curiously, Turnbull also admits that, ³CSS technology was not intended to be used against commercial piracy, it was intended to seriously inhibit individual consumers from making their own copies. It¹s aimed at keeping honest people honest.² Admitting that the issue has little to do with piracy may not be enough. The ultimate legality of the DeCSS code will be determined in the courts with both sides fully prepared to defend their position. Ironically, it¹s the nature of rapidly improving technology that may ultimately settle the DVD/DeCSS debate. A new storage standard looms. Constellation 3D is currently working on its FMD-ROM. Their disc, using a radically different method of storing information than either CDs or DVDs has 10 layers of information, as opposed to DVD¹s 4 layers and can store an intimidating 140 gigabytes on one disc‹over 7 times what a DVD can store. And you don¹t even have to flip the disc over. http://www.opendvd.org/ http://www.2600.com/ http://www.hackernews.com/ http://www.3dhardware.net/ ----------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Atwal c/o Echo Weekly 24 Erb St. E Waterloo, ON N2J 1L6 Phone: 519.725.0430 e-mail: echomag@golden.net ---------- >From: Rik van Riel >To: "Sandeep S. Atwal" >Subject: Re: Questions from a Journalist >Date: Tue, Feb 15, 2000, 7:33 AM > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Sandeep S. Atwal wrote: > >> Here's a rough draft of the article as it stands. Any comments >> would be welcome, but I am under a vicious deadline, so a rapid >> response would be very much appreciated. > > It's an excellent article. If it get published online, > I'll make sure it'll be linked to from the usual (busy) > places. > > The only (small) correction would be to point out that > the open DVD software has been downloaded well over a > million times. At least, opendvd.org has served well > over a hundred thousand copies and it isn't even near > what is considered a "busy download server". > > Considering the fact that the DVD-CCA lawsuit was > mentioning 500 John Does, some of which have over > a hundred times the number of hits a day OpenDVD.org > has, and managed to mention them _before_ any of the > publicity had been going on, I estimate somewhere > between 3 and 10 million copies of DeCSS and other > open DVD software have been downloaded. > > (but that's a minor nitpick, disregard at your > discretion) > > Again I'd like to thank you for taking the time to > carefully research your article. Thanks a lot! > > kind regards, > > Rik > -- > The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network > of people. That is its real strength. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 10:29:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29788 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:29:12 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29785 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:29:11 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA08461 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:29:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B0082F.72C5A4EF@cdpage.com> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:28:47 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate References: <200002200331.TAA17793@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0E79B5F7CB459767A257719B" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --------------0E79B5F7CB459767A257719B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rares Marian wrote: > Yikes! A Valenti clone on our side? I guess age matters. Damn it, the older you get the more distant from reality. By the way the reply is warped. Is that Netscape causing the double display? Now that is weird. > > That was sent to you offline. No, the Valenti-clone is not on our side. I'm the one who wrote that content is content. He's the one who apparently thinks some content is more equal than others. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com --------------0E79B5F7CB459767A257719B Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rares Marian wrote:

Yikes!  A Valenti clone on our side?  I guess age matters.  Damn it, the older you get the more distant from reality.  By the way the reply is warped.  Is that Netscape causing the double display?  Now that is weird.
 
 


That was sent to you offline. No, the Valenti-clone is not on our side. I'm the one who wrote that content is content. He's the one who apparently thinks some content is more equal than others.
 

--
Dana J. Parker
Consultant
http://www.cdpage.com
Contributing editor/standards columnist
Emedia magazine
http://www.emediapro.net
DVD PRO Conference Chair
http://www.dvdpro.net
I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression
http://www.eff.org/cafe

mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com
  --------------0E79B5F7CB459767A257719B-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 11:53:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20323 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:53:39 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20300 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:53:38 -0500 Received: from [38.32.11.247] (helo=ip247.bedford3.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12MZcX-0002vw-00; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:54:10 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:53:20 GMT Message-ID: <38b0144e.4110675@mail.tiac.net> References: <200002200935.BAA32243@ns1.filetron.com> In-Reply-To: <200002200935.BAA32243@ns1.filetron.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id LAA20321 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:35:45 -0800, Rares wrote: >What the hell does Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol have to do w/ any of this? They divide HDCP into three levels: display control; source control; and repeater control. DHCP seems to be needed to enforce router-like rules for each hot-plug device. This will be handy when they roll out parental mind-control across the PPV backbones. (Unless it was a typo-- HCDP DCPH PHDC...) >Boy and they expect us to follow a spec they can't even write? I don't think they're trying to reach us. It's just shoptalk in hell. Peace On Earth--Purity Of Essence __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 12:18:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA27687 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:18:02 -0500 Received: from dial221.roadrunner.com (dial221.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.221]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA27683 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:17:59 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial221.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00836 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:21:13 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:21:12 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Questions from a Journalist (fwd) Message-ID: <20000220102112.B646@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Rik van Riel on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 12:26:34PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 17 USC 106(4) grants the copyright holder limited control of the "performance" of motion pictures. The limitions are spelled out in later sections. Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: [ ... ] * (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; [ ... ] Paul On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 12:26:34PM +0100, Rik van Riel wrote: > Hi, > > attached is a piece from a journalist who has *really* > done his homework before writing an article. If you feel > like it, please review the piece for him :) > > Rik [ ... ] > By Sandeep Atwal [ ... ] > ³In all the above examples it's clear that the consumer hasn't done > anything wrong,² explains Riel, ³If I buy a DVD of a movie, that DVD disk is > mine and I can do with it as I please, as long as I don't give copies to > other people‹which is about the only illegal thing you can do with a > copyrighted work. Instead, the movie industry is trying to fool people into > thinking that they can determine what I do with the movie I just bought.² From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 13:01:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA07835 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:01:49 -0500 Received: from dial205.roadrunner.com (dial205.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.205]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA07831 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:01:46 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial205.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01122 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:05:04 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:05:03 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Speech is irrelevant: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). Message-ID: <20000220110503.A1037@localhost> References: <200002200944.BAA32612@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002200944.BAA32612@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:44:59AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here is a reponse to one of the points. On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:44:59AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Speech is irrelevant (not easy for them to get away with but they might try). Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). (*) 1. "The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." 2. "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge." 3. "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." Note that 2. may be pertinent to region codes. The Barnette decision may also have some choice words on this subject (I haven't read it yet). Paul --- (*) This is a 5-4 decision. Brennan announced, Marshall, Stevens, White concurred. Blackmun concurred in part. Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor dissented. The case is really about the removal of books from school libararies. 1. 2. and 3. show principles from which the decision is made. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 13:40:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA17090 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:40:33 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17087 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:40:32 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.16) with ESMTP id NAA13804 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:41:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id NAA22123; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:41:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:41:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002201841.NAA22123@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision In-Reply-To: <20000219222723.N11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> <88ip62$vu9$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000218203324.L11768@linuxpower.org> <88n9fs$64k$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000219222723.N11768@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > I suspect, though, that the real problem in trying to claim a reverse > engineering exemption is the fact that clean-room methodology was almost > certainly not followed. If it was followed, it was in no way documented > in any that would stand up in court. While practically it would still be > "reverse engineering", it may not be legitimate RE in the eyes of the law. IANAL, but to the best of my knowledge, "clean room" doesn't mean that the product being cloned is treated as a black box, and even in "clean room" reverse engineering efforts, it usually isn't. What it does mean is this: let's say that there's an operating system Kronos, and you're trying to produce a binary-compatible workalike called Clonos. Inevitably there will be similarities between Clonos and Kronos, perhaps regarding vital but undocumented features which you discovered through reverse engineering; the folks who wrote Kronos could try to use these as a basis for a case that Clonos is just a copy of their code, and therefore, that you infringed their copyright on the code itself. This case is obviously a lot easier to defend against if you can demonstrate that the programmers who wrote Clonos had no access to the actual Kronos code at all, and so couldn't have copied it. To establish this, you can put those programmers in a "clean room" --- clean of Kronos code, that is --- where neither Kronos itself nor any product based on it is allowed in. The only thing that you let in are specifications for Kronos functionality, including undocumented stuff, which are written by a reverse-engineering team in another room. (Of course, you keep copies of all those specs, to demonstrate that none of them include actual Kronos code). The reverse-engineering team in the other room can be using the full gamut of reverse-engineering techniques --- disassemblers, debuggers, logic analyzers, in-circuit emulators, whatever; that doesn't matter, since they aren't in the clean room. The point of the effort is not to demonstrate that Kronos has been treated with respect for its integrity, but rather to establish that Clonos was produced without infringing any copyrights. (Patent rights, etc., are obviously a separate issue, and "clean room" reverse engineering doesn't provide a defense against these). So, getting back to the case of CSS, I think "clean room" methodology would only be relevant if the authors of the Xing! player were alleging copyright infringement, and to the best of my knowledge they haven't. Instead, in the the California, trade-secret case, the MPAA is relying on a shrink-wrap license which bars reverse engineering of any kind whatever (and one of the biggest questions regarding that case is whether the license was legally binding in the jurisdiction where the reverse engineering allegedly occured). In the New York case, where the DMCA comes into play, the plaintiffs' central claim, as I understand it, is that the DMCA criminalizes posession of *anything* that works like DeCSS (except a DVD player made by one of their licensees). In this case, I'm not sure it ultimately matters a whole lot whether the code was produced by reverse engineering or by somebody's fairy godmother, since it is, per the claim, illegal to possess it either way. But again, IANAL. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 13:45:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA18322 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:45:25 -0500 Received: from gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (smtp.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA18319 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:45:24 -0500 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23933 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:44:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from 128.164.127.252 (webmail.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.246]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06670 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:53:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002201853.NAA06670@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:45:08 -0500 From: dhudson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002218 Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >> 17 USC 106(4) grants the copyright holder limited control of the >> "performance" of motion pictures. The limitions are spelled out >> in later sections. >> >> Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this >> title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the >> following: > >> * (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and >> choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other >> audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; >> Ah, but as in all legislation, look at the details! The 106(4) "performance" right is limited to PUBLIC performance. What does "public" performance mean, per chance? Well, 17 USC 101 defines "public" performance as follows... To perform or display a work "publicly" means -- (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. Since DeCSS only deals with access controls, not copying (the MPAA's own argument), definition one of "public" performance shouldn't apply to home use of a DVD. DeCSS certaintly doesn't perform the work to any particular audience, or distribute it, or even display it. (The copyright owner "licenses" home use only because they pretty much have to under 106(4)). If DeCSS was made part of a Napster-like distribution product for movies, it might fall into category (2). But as it stands now, DeCSS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COPYRIGHT OWNER'S (PUBLIC) PERFORMANCE RIGHT. At least according to my eyes (IANAL). -Doug dhudson@law.gwu.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 13:54:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22411 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:54:53 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22386 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:54:52 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.16) with ESMTP id NAA14823 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:55:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id NAA22162; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:55:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:55:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002201855.NAA22162@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Speech is irrelevant: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). In-Reply-To: <20000220110503.A1037@localhost> References: <200002200944.BAA32612@ns1.filetron.com> <20000220110503.A1037@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > 1. "The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." > 2. "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, > contract the spectrum of available knowledge." > 3. "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing > addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren > marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." > > Note that 2. may be pertinent to region codes. Hmmm... the case, at least from your description, seems to be regarding actions of the State, at least given your writeup: > The case is really about the removal of books from school libararies. > 1. 2. and 3. show principles from which the decision is made. So, it's probably significant that the school libraries in question are operated by the government --- and so this isn't necessarily relevant to the question of whether private parties can contract among themselves to restrict their own speech. Regarding region codes specifically, it might be interesting for a lawyer (which I'm not) to see if there's a useful argument to be found in the recent fracas regarding the third Harry Potter book; it was published earlier in Britain than the U.S., and the American publisher was disturbed to find people ordering British copies from the British version of amazon.com over the net... but I'm not sure this case ever actually went to court. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 13:55:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22825 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:55:52 -0500 Received: from dial189.roadrunner.com (dial189.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.189]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22821 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:55:50 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial189.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01533 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:59:07 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:59:05 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Message-ID: <20000220115905.A1518@localhost> References: <200002201853.NAA06670@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002201853.NAA06670@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>; from dhudson on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:45:08PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I agree with you. I was only objecting that: "If I buy a DVD of a movie, that DVD disk is mine and I can do with it as I please, as long as I don't give copies to other people?which is about the only illegal thing you can do with a copyrighted work." is inaccurate, not totally false. I should have been clear about that point. Q.E.D I wasn't. Paul On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:45:08PM -0500, dhudson wrote: > >> 17 USC 106(4) grants the copyright holder limited control of the > >> "performance" of motion pictures. The limitions are spelled out > >> in later sections. > >> > >> Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this > >> title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the > >> following: > > > >> * (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and > >> choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other > >> audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; > >> > > Ah, but as in all legislation, look at the details! The 106(4) "performance" > right is limited to PUBLIC performance. What does "public" performance mean, > per chance? > > Well, 17 USC 101 defines "public" performance as follows... > > To perform or display a work "publicly" means -- > (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any > place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a > family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or > (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the > work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any > device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving > the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate > places and at the same time or at different times. > > Since DeCSS only deals with access controls, not copying (the MPAA's own > argument), definition one of "public" performance shouldn't apply to home > use of a DVD. DeCSS certaintly doesn't perform the work to any particular > audience, or distribute it, or even display it. (The copyright owner > "licenses" home use only because they pretty much have to under 106(4)). > > If DeCSS was made part of a Napster-like distribution product for movies, it > might fall into category (2). But as it stands now, DeCSS DOES NOT VIOLATE > THE COPYRIGHT OWNER'S (PUBLIC) PERFORMANCE RIGHT. At least according to my > eyes (IANAL). > > -Doug > dhudson@law.gwu.edu > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 13:59:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA24594 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:59:41 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA24554 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:59:40 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id KAA06440 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:59:23 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:59:23 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Xing hack is enough Message-ID: <20000220105923.D4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <38bf9c3d.74213366@mail.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <38bf9c3d.74213366@mail.tiac.net>; from rongus@tiac.net on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:56:34AM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ron Gustavson writes: > [sleeping with the enemy...] > > Isn't distributing what was well known as a hack of the Xing player > enough to hang 'em high? (when did this info become commonplace?) Most people don't know what they're distributing. For example, many of the programs people are referring to as "DeCSS" aren't DeCSS, but completely other programs which _may_ have been derived from DeCSS (like the various parts and versions and adaptations of css-auth by Derek Fawcus). The code on the copyleft.net t-shirt is a portion of css-auth, which isn't even complained of in the DVD CCA complaint (though it is probably now covered by injunctions). > Linux users can do without drivers for a Winmodem and have to sign > license agreements to install, say, WordPerfect. Why not wait until > RedHat licenses a DVD viewer, or ATI provides one? And give me > more than it's the culture, stoopid. Hmmmm, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ Let it not be said that nobody believes this. I have friends who run vrms on their Debian systems. A lot of Linux drivers were produced through reverse-engineering of some sort (not necessarily disassembly). Even the tremendously esteemed Samba program was originally produced, and continues to be maintained, through reverse-engineering of Microsoft's SMB implementation (sniffing and experimenting with the wire protocol it produced). I think that the "do[ing] without drivers for a Winmodem" is mostly because Winmodem drivers -- by any means -- are perceived as lots of effort for very little reward. Finally, drivers that talk to hardware traditionally have to run privileged. Proprietary software running unprivileged is not inherently a security hole (although it can lead to loss of privacy and make it easy to exploit other security holes). Proprietary software running privileged _is_ an inherent security hole; it leaves the security of your system entirely at the mercy and at the discretion of the software author. > The Windows EXE is said to be a byproduct of the quest for UDF support. > Then after DeCSS.zip was widely distributed, UDF support came to Linux. > How convenient is this chronology? Did this really occur this way? You'd have to ask Jon Johansen. I found the chronology somewhat questionable at first, but I note that Jon is a Linux user whose e-mail address is now at linuxdvd.org -- maybe someone else in MoRE was a pirate or warez-type at heart, and certainly some of the groups with which MoRE members were supposed to have exchanged information fit into that category. But if we're talking about Jon Johansen, the only identified member of MoRE, the only one who published anything, and the only one who got in trouble for it, I think he's awfully serious about free software DVD support. I mean, it's been pointed out that the people who only want to show off and promote piracy have often released their stuff in binary-only form. They don't necessarily want anyone else to learn from it or improve it or adapt it; they just want admiration and perhaps for other people to be dependent on them. DeCSS is a Windows program -- but we got source code. If not for extension and portability -- why? -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 14:05:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA27113 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:05:30 -0500 Received: from dial189.roadrunner.com (dial189.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.189]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA27110 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:05:27 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial189.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01580 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:08:45 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:08:44 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Speech is irrelevant: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). Message-ID: <20000220120843.A1563@localhost> References: <200002200944.BAA32612@ns1.filetron.com> <20000220110503.A1037@localhost> <200002201855.NAA22162@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002201855.NAA22162@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from Robert S. Thau on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:55:23PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:55:23PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > 1. "The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." > > 2. "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, > > contract the spectrum of available knowledge." > > 3. "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing > > addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren > > marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." > > > > Note that 2. may be pertinent to region codes. > > Hmmm... the case, at least from your description, seems to be > regarding actions of the State, at least given your writeup: This is an important point. The question to my mind is, "can Congress even lend the support of law to similar conduct by a private actor?" I would give a conditional "no" as an answer to my own question. The First Amendment say "no law", not "no gov't conduct." Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 14:48:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08270 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:48:42 -0500 Received: from dial67.roadrunner.com (dial67.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.67]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08267 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:48:39 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial67.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01979 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:51:57 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:51:56 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Correction Message-ID: <20000220125156.A1958@localhost> References: <200002200944.BAA32612@ns1.filetron.com> <20000220110503.A1037@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000220110503.A1037@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:05:03AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I was reading a printed-paper summary of decisions, and I mis-interpreted the text. My appologies for any inconvenience. The Pico decision is useful, it has a number of references to other (pertinent?) decision. On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:05:03AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > 1. "The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479,482 (1965). > 2. "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, > contract the spectrum of available knowledge." Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557,564 (1969). > 3. "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing > addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren > marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." I'm still working on this one. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 15:33:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA18924 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:33:50 -0500 Received: from dial246.roadrunner.com (dial246.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA18921 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:33:48 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial246.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02428 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:37:06 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:37:05 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Right to read: Martin v. Struthers (1943). Message-ID: <20000220133705.A2240@localhost> References: <20000216230224.17769.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> <20000216170405.B1610@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000216170405.B1610@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 05:04:05PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 05:04:05PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: [ ... ] > 2) Interpretations of the DMCA that prohibit DeCSS are unconstitutional [ ... ] > E) A "Right to Read" exists in 1st and 9th Amendments [ ... ] The Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) decision cites "the right to read" from Martin v. Struthers 319 U.S. 141,143 (1943), and "freedom in inquiry" from Weimann v. Updegraff 344 U.S. 183,195. I couldn't find these on www.law.cornell.edu, so I'll have to dig them up on paper, unless someone else (with better access to a library) does so first. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 15:42:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA20885 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:42:05 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA20882 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:42:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 29794 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2000 20:37:49 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 20:37:49 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA19323; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:42:34 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:42:34 -0800 Message-Id: <200002202042.MAA19323@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Missed my point Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Speech is irrelevant: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You missed my point... Don't attack it until you've built up their claim Like speech is irrelevant to this charge because we are talking about a criminal act not a discussion in private. And you know what, most Americans would buy it. Why because not one AOLer out there and not one parent views the Internet as a discussion medium. See what I mean? :) Rares Paul Fenimore wrote: >Here is a reponse to one of the points. > >On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:44:59AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> Speech is irrelevant (not easy for them to get away with but they might try). > >Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). (*) > >1. "The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." >2. "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, >contract the spectrum of available knowledge." >3. "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing >addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren >marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." > >Note that 2. may be pertinent to region codes. > >The Barnette decision may also have some choice words on this subject >(I haven't read it yet). > > >Paul > >--- >(*) This is a 5-4 decision. >Brennan announced, Marshall, Stevens, White concurred. > >Blackmun concurred in part. > >Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor dissented. > >The case is really about the removal of books from school libararies. >1. 2. and 3. show principles from which the decision is made. ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 16:10:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA29812 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:10:05 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA29809 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:10:04 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id NAA06735 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:09:48 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:09:47 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Right to read: Martin v. Struthers (1943). Message-ID: <20000220130947.P4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000216230224.17769.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> <20000216170405.B1610@localhost> <20000220133705.A2240@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000220133705.A2240@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:37:05PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 05:04:05PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > [ ... ] > > 2) Interpretations of the DMCA that prohibit DeCSS are unconstitutional > [ ... ] > > E) A "Right to Read" exists in 1st and 9th Amendments > [ ... ] > > The Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) decision cites "the right to read" from > > Martin v. Struthers 319 U.S. 141,143 (1943), > > and "freedom in inquiry" from > > Weimann v. Updegraff 344 U.S. 183,195. > > I couldn't find these on www.law.cornell.edu, so I'll have to dig > them up on paper, unless someone else (with better access to a > library) does so first. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/344/183.html http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/141.html I recognize _Weimann_ because I had a quotation from Justice Black's opinion in that case on the Californians for Academic Freedom web page before our server crashed. I've found Cornell's site good for finding US Code passages, and Findlaw convenient for Supreme Court opinions. A library would be ideal, but the Internet is getting better and better for legal research as more court reporters come on-line. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 16:22:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01060 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:22:46 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01057 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:22:45 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA22960 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:21:48 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06736; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:46:11 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Date: 20 Feb 2000 12:45:05 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 11 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88pjoh$6if$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <200002201853.NAA06670@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu What you seem as though you may be missing is that the NY case isn't (just) about copyright infringment, it's about circumvention under the DMCA. As far as I can tell, the DMCA apparently provides a totally separate offense, which does not require the plaintiffs to prove that any copyright infringement has actually occurred. So you can quote from the copyright code all you like, but it's not clear to me whether those quotes will be relevant to the legal case under the DMCA or not. This is one example of why, as much as some of us might like to believe otherwise, I suspect this case will depend primarily on who has got the smartest lawyers, rather than who has got the smartest computer geeks. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 16:31:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03766 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:31:40 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA03748 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:31:39 -0500 Received: from [38.32.79.97] (helo=ip97.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12Mdxb-0005Tm-00; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:32:11 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Planned protest Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:31:18 GMT Message-ID: <38b95ccd.22672630@mail.tiac.net> References: <38ADA022.32578B63@cdpage.com> In-Reply-To: <38ADA022.32578B63@cdpage.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id QAA03750 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:40:18 -0700, Dana wrote: >in its views of DeCSS and the MPAA's and DVD CCA's lawsuits. In other >words, don't protest the conference per se, since there are supporters >(such as myself) who will be attending. Protest the MPAA's and DVD CCA's >actions and the DMCA instead. Many of the DVD industry will join you, if >you make this clear. Even more will join when and if they understand >what's truly at stake here. Might we come up with something for Academy awards week? (BTW when is that?) __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 16:47:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11531 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:47:23 -0500 Received: from shadow.csufresno.edu (relay-1.csufresno.edu [129.8.57.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11528 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:47:22 -0500 Received: from lennon.csufresno.edu (smb23@lennon.csufresno.edu [129.8.57.50]) by shadow.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01018; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:47:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (smb23@localhost) by lennon.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA27217; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:47:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:47:40 -0800 (PST) From: Steve M Bibayoff To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: Seth David Schoen Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss](OT-question) Right to read: Martin... In-Reply-To: <20000220130947.P4856@cty-alum.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Californians for Academic Freedom" web page, whats URL? Is the server back up? TIA Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 16:48:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11681 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:48:31 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA11678 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:48:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 32764 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2000 21:44:15 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 21:44:15 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23912; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:48:59 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:48:59 -0800 Message-Id: <200002202148.NAA23912@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Correction Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's good but we need to first buil their case before we throttle it. EFF L-O-S-T because they didn't. Paul Fenimore wrote: >I was reading a printed-paper summary of decisions, and I mis-interpreted >the text. My appologies for any inconvenience. > >The Pico decision is useful, it has a number of references to other >(pertinent?) decision. > >On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:05:03AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: >> 1. "The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." > >Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479,482 (1965). > >> 2. "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, >> contract the spectrum of available knowledge." > >Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557,564 (1969). > >> 3. "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing >> addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren >> marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." > >I'm still working on this one. > > >Paul ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 17:25:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA21523 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:25:35 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA21520 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:25:34 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id OAA06865 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:25:17 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:25:17 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss](OT-question) Right to read: Martin... Message-ID: <20000220142517.V4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000220130947.P4856@cty-alum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from smb23@csufresno.edu on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:47:40PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve M Bibayoff writes: > "Californians for Academic Freedom" web page, whats URL? > Is the server back up? It's _very_ off-topic, so my one and only message here about it: the State of California still has a loyalty oath for everyone seeking public employment, it's in the State Constitution, there's a bunch of Federal caselaw saying that it's legitimate, I think it's wrong, I was fired for refusing it when I was chosen for a student computer helper job at UC Berkeley. CAF is my organization which opposes it; our web site is at "http://www.loyalty.org/", it's down now, it will be back up soon, send me e-mail for more information. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 17:53:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27679 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:53:48 -0500 Received: from gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (smtp.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA27676 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:53:48 -0500 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05240 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:54:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002202254.RAA05240@gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu> X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 00 17:55:00 -0600 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:55:00 -0600 From: Douglas Hudson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00103035 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: InterChange (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Someone just replied... >What you seem as though you may be missing is that the NY case isn't >(just) about copyright infringment, it's about circumvention under >the DMCA. As far as I can tell, the DMCA apparently provides a totally >separate offense, which does not require the plaintiffs to prove that >any copyright infringement has actually occurred. So you can quote from >the copyright code all you like, but it's not clear to me whether those >quotes will be relevant to the legal case under the DMCA or not. --warning: begin rant-- Actually, I've made that exact point about 4 times in the last week. See the devil's advocate outline response I submitted at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/HyperNews/get3/opendvd/4.html, for example. This discussion is going in circles. Threads are being taken out of context; a few participants don't seem to understand that "fairness" != "the law." >This is one example of why, as much as some of us might like to believe >otherwise, I suspect this case will depend primarily on who has got the >smartest lawyers, rather than who has got the smartest computer geeks. Fine, then let's get together a group of smart lawyers to work with all these smart techies. The EON discussion list on legal matters doesn't seem to be getting anywhere-- if there are any lawyers or law students reading this, I really think there is room there for a discussion of the real underlying legal issues on the EON list. Namely, it would be fruitful to do a (1) rigorous textual analysis of the DMCA (2) determine what part of DeCSS/LiViD/dss-auth is covered as a "part thereof" of a circumvention device under the DMCA (I suspect all of it, even the source code) -also, determine what the underlying facts of DeCSS creation -what needs to be shown for each exception to the DMCA (3) constitutional analysis of the DMCA (copyright clause, nec & prop, commerce, 1st amendment protection for non-copyrighted speech) (4) antitrust copyright misuse through access controls which block fair use (DMCA doesn't describe scope of allowable access controls--this it is an open question whether abuse of such controls could constitute copyright misuse) -novel open copyright law question (5) antitrust tying (6) alternative routes, namely -lobbying LOC, amenable congresspeople -media -counseling those engaging in civil disobedience on how to stay within the law --end rant, with apologies-- -Doug dhudson@law.gwu.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 18:01:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA29772 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:01:04 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA29759 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:01:03 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id A440376F4; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:02:00 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:28:01 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002201853.NAA06670@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> <88pjoh$6if$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <88pjoh$6if$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022017020000.07427@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, you wrote: > What you seem as though you may be missing is that the NY case isn't > (just) about copyright infringment, it's about circumvention under > the DMCA. As far as I can tell, the DMCA apparently provides a totally > separate offense, which does not require the plaintiffs to prove that > any copyright infringement has actually occurred. So you can quote from > the copyright code all you like, but it's not clear to me whether those > quotes will be relevant to the legal case under the DMCA or not. You do have a point, that the viewing of the copyrighted material is not the main issue in the current case. The case is about the distribution of a technological device (DeCSS binaries), which the MPAA says is illegal under the DMCA's restriction on distribution of technology that circumvents technological protection (CSS) of copyrighted material (the movies). There are several points that can be attacked it this though: Does DeCSS qualify as a "device"? (probably yes, as a binary) Is the DMCA's ban on distributing such a device constitutional under the first ammendment and the copyright clause? (not sure what the best arguments are on this) Does DeCSS "circumvent" CSS, or is it's use covered under fair use or the DVD licence? (This is what is being discussed here.) > This is one example of why, as much as some of us might like to believe > otherwise, I suspect this case will depend primarily on who has got the > smartest lawyers, rather than who has got the smartest computer geeks. Well, so of it will be who's lawyers can get the most work done to supposrt their case. If us computer geeks can help them out a little bit by working out some of the arguments and reading over relevant cases, then they will be a little bit more prepared. Certainly though, what really matters is what goes on in court. I just hope that something I do can make a difference there. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu "Thank heaven for startups; without them we'd never have any advances." -- Seymour Cray From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 18:49:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA09885 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:49:15 -0500 Received: from yakko.cs.wmich.edu (root@yakko.cs.wmich.edu [141.218.40.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA09882 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:49:14 -0500 Received: (from frogfarm@localhost) by yakko.cs.wmich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19533 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:49:44 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:49:44 -0500 From: damaged justice To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Message-ID: <20000220184944.A19522@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> References: <200002202254.RAA05240@gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002202254.RAA05240@gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Quoting Douglas Hudson (DHudson@law.gwu.edu): >counseling those engaging in civil disobedience on how to stay within the law Is not the essence of civil disobedience to openly and willfully break the law in question? Some of the things I do may be illegal, but they can never be made unlawful. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 18:57:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA12533 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:57:15 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA12530 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:57:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 5981 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2000 23:53:00 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 23:53:00 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA31270; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:57:44 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:57:44 -0800 Message-Id: <200002202357.PAA31270@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Follow the light at the end of the tunnel Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've got to agree with Rob Warren on this, we're setting ourselves up for a fall by this defensive reactionary stance. We need to know what they will argue. How they will react. That's why the EFF lost earlier. They didn't do their homework. I'm not trying to bitch, but we've been over these points a dozen times. This is a serious case. We know we're right but we're not the only ones in the court room. It's not us vs the judge. It's us vs the MPAA. Let me give you an example: Say you're writing a research paper for a class or a persuassive paper for that matter. You will get nowhere listing examples. And it's not about the reader falling asleep. It's about a complete one sidedness to your research. Even if your arguments have many facets and are impartial, you still only researched what's on your side. Which means your argument is still incomplete because you don't have a complete picture of the other side of the story. The entire portion of your paper that deals with the other side of the story is just a shadow of your side. We need to look further. I hate to say this (I did it too you know), but even with the great effort we've all put in we don't have a clear picture about their case. The fact that we know they're not arguing copyright infringement is just the tip of the iceberg. I love being right about DeCSS, but like Rob says this is a lovefest w/ DeCSS, not a cold clean agressive assault on their case. What are they going to argue? Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 19:09:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA16370 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:09:36 -0500 Received: from relay2.zonnet.nl (relay2.zonnet.nl [212.48.41.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA16352 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:09:35 -0500 Received: from stad.dsl.nl ([212.189.248.6]) by relay2.zonnet.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 4.05) with ESMTP id FQ974Q02.68M for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 01:10:02 +0100 Message-ID: <38B0827A.121ED1B4@stad.dsl.nl> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 01:10:34 +0100 From: Tom den Duijf X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Did you ever see a DINASOUR die?? Come and see this one References: <200002182007.MAA03582@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: > > Three words: This Is War! I'm not waiting for public opinion. Any technology I will ever develop is going to take this into account. I'm glad my 19" monitor will last me a few years. Long enough to kill this. > > Rares Hi! I think the word is out there "This is WAR"... So lets go and kill this basterd:) how?an can we DO it? well.. Compared to what Ghandi did to the English.. Peace of cake needs a few numbers and enough determination to do the job speaking about numbers, we can easily outnumber Ghandi.. because What does it take to participate in the CyberWalk? exactly! typing and connection but no walking and determination? well they are working on that on themselves, so.. and how well let some others drop in about this lets stay in contact ----------------------------------------------------------------------- imagine Steve Jobs and a whole softwaredepartment would have been taken out of bussinesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss its like with children stop hitting them but my mother said sometimes you get a better child after now this also counts for the big ones > > PS: How far is openlaw going to go once it clears the first 5-10 cases? Is it possible to pre-emptively create legislation that blocks this kind of abuse? > > rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) wrote: > >On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:08:04 -0500, Jason wrote: > > > >http://www.digital-cp.com/ > >This is a great Web site--so informative. Why do they even bother? > > > >They will win. These multi-billion dollar corporations who consider > >us all potential criminals. We may be music fans and movie buffs as > >well, but criminals is our natural bent. > > > >I see this as an extension of the Hitachi, Intel, Panasonic, Sony, and > >Toshiba led Firewire encryption. > > > >I think we need to identify the companies that are pushing this stuff > >and which of their competitiors--if any--aren't. It will make my decision > >to build PCs around AMD chips that much easier. > > > >(I'm already boycotting Hollywood--not the place--just the product. > >I might have to make an exception to get that mini-DV camcorder. > >Perhaps need to keep on saving for a Canon. C'est la vie.) > > > >>Most likely, it will also allow a device such as a DVD player decide not to > >>output to a device capable of recording. This could eventually mean that > >>analog recordings of digital media would require circumvention techniques. > > > >I've been wondering about this WRT ReplayTV and Tivo. Will they allow > >output to a VCR? > > > >[back to the legalese...] > > > > > >__________no-∞-do__________ > > ---------------------- > Do you do Linux? :) > Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 19:13:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA17563 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:13:32 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA17560 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:13:32 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4989C76F4; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:14:30 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:59:54 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002202254.RAA05240@gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu> <20000220184944.A19522@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> In-Reply-To: <20000220184944.A19522@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022018143000.07664@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, you wrote: > Quoting Douglas Hudson (DHudson@law.gwu.edu): > >counseling those engaging in civil disobedience on how to stay within the law > > Is not the essence of civil disobedience to openly and willfully break the law > in question? I think the purpose of civil disobedience is to call attention to the injustice of bad laws. The point is not to break the law, but to get the law changed. If the best way to get it changed is to break the law in such a way that does not hurt other people and makes an example of why the law is unjust, then that is the way to go. In other cases, breaking the law will make your position weaker, because popular opinion will be against you if you are just a "common criminal." Frequently, doing other things which are not illegal are more effective at getting support for your cause. It's often difficult to protest injustice from jail. > Some of the things I do may be illegal, but they can never be made unlawful. Well, I think those are synonyms, but if you mean "unjust" you do have a point. That doesn't always mean that the law should be broken though. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Most people prefer certainty to truth. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 19:46:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA25397 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:46:20 -0500 Received: from dial151.roadrunner.com (dial151.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.151]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA25394 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:46:17 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial151.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00772 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:49:29 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:49:29 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right Message-ID: <20000220174929.B670@localhost> References: <200002201853.NAA06670@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> <88pjoh$6if$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <88pjoh$6if$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from David A. Wagner on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 12:45:05PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sorry for aggravation, but I was trying to correct what I saw as something the MPAA would come along later and say, "Aha! These bozos don't even know that DeCSS could be used to make an illegal public performance. See, here they imply that the only copyright issue is copying." Not that the MPAA's point would even be relevant, given that a stock player could do the same thing. But I don't think that would stop them from saying something like the words above in public. If you still think my point off-base, then I'll just have to let it lay where it is. Paul On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 12:45:05PM -0800, David A. Wagner wrote: > What you seem as though you may be missing is that the NY case isn't > (just) about copyright infringment, it's about circumvention under > the DMCA. As far as I can tell, the DMCA apparently provides a totally > separate offense, which does not require the plaintiffs to prove that > any copyright infringement has actually occurred. So you can quote from > the copyright code all you like, but it's not clear to me whether those > quotes will be relevant to the legal case under the DMCA or not. > > This is one example of why, as much as some of us might like to believe > otherwise, I suspect this case will depend primarily on who has got the > smartest lawyers, rather than who has got the smartest computer geeks. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 19:47:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA25807 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:47:40 -0500 Received: from dial151.roadrunner.com (dial151.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.151]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA25787 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:47:38 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial151.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00783 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:50:56 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:50:56 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Correction Message-ID: <20000220175056.A780@localhost> References: <200002202148.NAA23912@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002202148.NAA23912@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:48:59PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:48:59PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > That's good but we need to first buil their case before we throttle it. > > EFF L-O-S-T because they didn't. Fair enough. This doesn't belong as reply to you first post. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 20:17:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA00852 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:17:59 -0500 Received: from yakko.cs.wmich.edu (root@yakko.cs.wmich.edu [141.218.40.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA00840 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:17:58 -0500 Received: (from frogfarm@localhost) by yakko.cs.wmich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20013 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:18:29 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:18:29 -0500 From: damaged justice To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Message-ID: <20000220201829.A19959@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> References: <200002202254.RAA05240@gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu> <20000220184944.A19522@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> <00022018143000.07664@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <00022018143000.07664@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Quoting Steven Barker (steve@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu): > On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, you wrote: > > Quoting Douglas Hudson (DHudson@law.gwu.edu): > > >counseling those engaging in civil disobedience on how to stay within the law > > > > Is not the essence of civil disobedience to openly and willfully break the law > > in question? > > I think the purpose of civil disobedience is to call attention to the injustice > of bad laws. The point is not to break the law, but to get the law changed. > If the best way to get it changed is to break the law in such a way that does > not hurt other people and makes an example of why the law is unjust, then that > is the way to go. In other cases, breaking the law will make your position > weaker, because popular opinion will be against you if you are just a "common > criminal." Frequently, doing other things which are not illegal are more > effective at getting support for your cause. It's often difficult to protest > injustice from jail. But is one's goal to garner popular opinion, or to lessen or eliminate the effects of bad law? Also, recall that unless a law is outright nullified, winning a case will have little to no effect on the rest of the world, only for the one who wins it. (Good precedent would affect everyone; hence, the vital vested interests to ensure that good precedents are not set.) There are those who are trying to "look good" for the media, and those who are just plain sick and tired of having their rights violated. Regardless of one's aims, might I recommend the following strategy guide: ELEMENTS OF A PREFERRED COURTROOM STRATEGY Research all pertinent statutes, rules, regulations, legislative history, court cases, and treatises; in short, become an expert on the narrow points of law of the case. (Get a copy of "A Guide to Federal Agency Rule Making.") Project the position of underdog, intelligence, honesty, fear, indignation, issue of principle or belief, determination, calm, non-antagonism and, most especially, non-arrogance. Don't do, say or write anything that may be used against you legally or politically (foul language, threats, radical invectiveness, and so on). It doesn't become the master to get angry at the slaves for being disobedient. Supposedly, these people are your public servants. Remind them of it politely. Give them fair warning. Let them make the admissions and confessions that will win your case, preferably in the presence of witnesses; don't open your mouth if you're not sure of anything. And if they continue to violate your rights after you've given them what's called "constructive notice", offensive lawsuits can help you obtain redress of greivances. Don't get personally involved. Put "first offenders" on probation unless they've really, really screwed you over in a big way; this way, they get let off with a warning not to do it again, which still makes an impression when done right, and has the added advantage of not making an uncessary enemy by sending them to jail or taking their life's savings to pay your damages. When possible, draw battle-lines on important political issue championed by many of the public, but don't push it if they are only of secondary importance to your case. Legally, public opinion doesn't matter; politically, it can be quite valuable, if only in helping to make sure your house and loved ones don't get firebombed in the night. Expose any wrong-doing by the government and court; remind the community that they are the ones in charge. Limit your opponent's options through unilateral discovery, FOIA demands, jurisdictional arguments when possible, impeccable behavior in public and condemnation of your adversaries' acts. Don't limit your options. Don't itemize your defenses. Don't give information enabling your opponents' preparation to meet defense or an amendment of charges to your detriment. Ensure your credibility by only selecting one adversary per battle, if possible. Don't add names or issues to the debate. Keep the focus narrow, the same way the Supreme Court does; you may end up alienating potential supporters. Don't appear to be a legal know-it-all. It may work when preaching to the converted, but it won't fly with the general public. Ideally, the legal knowledge or other assistance should appear to come from "unknown" supporters; at least, it should appear that way to the Joe Sixpacks of the world, who are naturally suspicious of rationality and reason. If the public perceives that you are capable of handling yourself and are not the underdog, they will likely withdraw their support, especially if you are filing offensive actions as opposed to defensive. And finally: DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME FRIVOLOUSLY, DON'T SAY ANYTHING, KEEP QUIET AND *SHUT UP!* > > Some of the things I do may be illegal, but they can never be made unlawful. > > Well, I think those are synonyms, but if you mean "unjust" you do have a point. No, they are most decidedly not synonyms, unless you are using the "street" definitions of the words instead of the definitions used by courts. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (the AK-47 of the pro se litigant) is the definitive "RFC", but in summary: "Legal" is the mere FORM of the law; you can dot all your i's and cross all your t's while merrily sending Jews to the gas chambers (to use a Godwinesque metaphor) and still be obeying all the statutes, legislation, orders, etc. "Lawful", on the other hand, is concerned with the SUBSTANCE of law, not the mere form/formalities. What is lawful cannot be made unlawful. Making something "illegal" means making it malum prohibitum, or "evil because it is prohibited" (i.e., "it's wrong because it's against the law", a circular definition if ever there was one). Unlawful actions are those which are malum in se, or "evil in and of itself" -- i.e., those actions which are inherently wrong (fraud, theft, assault, murder). > That doesn't always mean that the law should be broken though. That's up to each individual to decide. Rather than meek apologies which are rooted in legislation, I would prefer to see an active "defense" which is more offensive in nature, and grounded in fundamental, inalienable rights. You don't have any rights that you can't claim, and if you don't object timely, the right is assumed to be waived. The Supreme Court has said: "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person." - US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538. And so it is with all rights. -- I let go of the law, and people become honest / I let go of economics, and people become prosperous / I let go of religion, and people become serene / I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass. .oOo. [Tao Te Ching, Chapter 57, Stephen Mitchell translation] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 20:30:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA05294 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:30:43 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA05290 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:30:42 -0500 Received: (qmail 9303 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2000 01:26:28 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2000 01:26:28 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03342; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:31:12 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:31:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200002210131.RAA03342@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Correction Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: >On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:48:59PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> That's good but we need to first buil their case before we throttle it. >> >> EFF L-O-S-T because they didn't. > >Fair enough. This doesn't belong as reply to you first post. Okay :) Really I'm not trying to be an ass, I just doesn't want to lose this. Where can I find the complete transcript of the earlier case? > >Paul Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 20:50:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA11744 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:50:52 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA11741 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:50:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 10280 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2000 01:46:38 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2000 01:46:38 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04593; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:51:22 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:51:22 -0800 Message-Id: <200002210151.RAA04593@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Good --> Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: >Sorry for aggravation, but I was trying to correct what I saw as >something the MPAA would come along later and say, "Aha! These >bozos don't even know that DeCSS could be used to make an illegal >public performance. See, here they imply that the only copyright issue >is copying." Not that the MPAA's point would even be relevant, given >that a stock player could do the same thing. But I don't think that >would stop them from saying something like the words above in public. > >If you still think my point off-base, then I'll just have to let it >lay where it is. See :) That's what we need right now. What is their case made of titanium or swiss cheese? We say swiss cheese. The law they use to hold it up is a little pro-swiss at the moment, and I'm not convinced we can count on that fact alone that the law is also made of swiss cheese to put out the stink of limburger, nevermind melt it down. I'm going to relax tomorrow morning, then I'm going to see what I can find in the afternoon. Later. >Paul Rares >On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 12:45:05PM -0800, David A. Wagner wrote: >> What you seem as though you may be missing is that the NY case isn't >> (just) about copyright infringment, it's about circumvention under >> the DMCA. As far as I can tell, the DMCA apparently provides a totally >> separate offense, which does not require the plaintiffs to prove that >> any copyright infringement has actually occurred. So you can quote from >> the copyright code all you like, but it's not clear to me whether those >> quotes will be relevant to the legal case under the DMCA or not. >> >> This is one example of why, as much as some of us might like to believe >> otherwise, I suspect this case will depend primarily on who has got the >> smartest lawyers, rather than who has got the smartest computer geeks. We can play both games once we stop thinking it's just a game. ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 21:27:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA26061 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:27:38 -0500 Received: from nospam (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA25022 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:25:36 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:25:36 -0500 From: nospam@nospam.com Message-Id: <200002210225.VAA25022@eon.law.harvard.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The outline at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/HyperNews/get3/opendvd/3.html fails to mention a serious constitutional problem with the DMCA, which Eric Eldred pointed out in his comments to the copyright office. Circumvention and circumvention devices are prohibited even for works for which the copyright has expired, information for which copyright protection is not available, or works which are otherwise in the public domain. If a technological measure that controls access is applied to a non-copyrighted work, 1201(a)(3) still prohibits circumvention devices. This violates the copyright clause because 1) it grants rights to persons other the "authors and inventors" allowed by the US constition, and 2) the anti-circumvention provisions never expire, therefore violating the constitutional requirement that copyright be secured "for limited times". 1201(a)(2) only applies "to a work protected under this title" so presumably circumventing a measure that controls access to a non-copyrighted work would be permissible. But what if the measure controlled access to copyrighted and non-copyrighted materials? It would seem that it would then be illegal to circumvent the technological measure, even if only to access the non-copyrighted information. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 21:38:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA28993 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:38:30 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28990 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:38:29 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA10449 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:39:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B0A50E.114F9AD3@cdpage.com> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:38:06 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) References: <200002201853.NAA06670@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> <88pjoh$6if$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <00022017020000.07427@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steven Barker wrote: > You do have a point, that the viewing of the copyrighted material is not the > main issue in the current case. > > The case is about the distribution of a technological device (DeCSS binaries), > which the MPAA says is illegal under the DMCA's restriction on distribution of > technology that circumvents technological protection (CSS) of copyrighted > material (the movies). > > There are several points that can be attacked it this though: > > Does DeCSS qualify as a "device"? (probably yes, as a binary) > > Is the DMCA's ban on distributing such a device constitutional under the > first ammendment and the copyright clause? (not sure what the best arguments > are on this) > > Does DeCSS "circumvent" CSS, or is it's use covered under fair use or the > DVD licence? (This is what is being discussed here.) > > Take a look here for an interesting argument. http://www.hrrc.org/gklein_statement.html Also, I seem to recall some brilliant legal mind telling me that the DMCA was expressly written so as to NOT interfere with the doctrine of Fair Use, as detailed in the copyright act and as upheld in the Betamax decision of the SCOTUS. What the DMCA does, however, is to completely eliminate the possibiblity of fair use, by making it illegal to circumvent something that prevents fair use. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 21:42:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA29954 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:42:32 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA29951 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:42:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 12267 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2000 02:38:18 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2000 02:38:18 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA07380; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:43:02 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:43:02 -0800 Message-Id: <200002210243.SAA07380@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu True and we covered this a few days ago :) nospam@nospam.com wrote: >The outline at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/HyperNews/get3/opendvd/3.html >fails to mention a serious constitutional problem with the DMCA, which >Eric Eldred pointed out in his comments to the copyright office. > >Circumvention and circumvention devices are prohibited even for works for >which the copyright has expired, information for which copyright protection >is not available, or works which are otherwise in the public domain. Kinda like you can't ask what's in the free samples of regular apple pie. Sux. >If a technological measure that controls access is applied to a >non-copyrighted work, 1201(a)(3) still prohibits circumvention devices. >This violates the copyright clause because 1) it grants rights to persons >other the "authors and inventors" allowed by the US constition, and 2) the >anti-circumvention provisions never expire, therefore violating the >constitutional requirement that copyright be secured "for limited times". > >1201(a)(2) only applies "to a work protected under this title" so presumably >circumventing a measure that controls access to a non-copyrighted work would >be permissible. But what if the measure controlled access to copyrighted >and non-copyrighted materials? It would seem that it would then be illegal >to circumvent the technological measure, even if only to access the >non-copyrighted information. Yup except we have to derail their case before we can even begin to talk about that. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 22:31:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA06694 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:31:57 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA06691 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:31:56 -0500 Received: (qmail 14233 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2000 03:27:43 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2000 03:27:43 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA10103; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:32:26 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:32:26 -0800 Message-Id: <200002210332.TAA10103@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >Steven Barker wrote: > >> You do have a point, that the viewing of the copyrighted material is not the >> main issue in the current case. >> >> The case is about the distribution of a technological device (DeCSS binaries), >> which the MPAA says is illegal under the DMCA's restriction on distribution of >> technology that circumvents technological protection (CSS) of copyrighted >> material (the movies). >> >> There are several points that can be attacked it this though: >> >> Does DeCSS qualify as a "device"? (probably yes, as a binary) >> >> Is the DMCA's ban on distributing such a device constitutional under the >> first ammendment and the copyright clause? (not sure what the best arguments >> are on this) >> >> Does DeCSS "circumvent" CSS, or is it's use covered under fair use or the >> DVD licence? (This is what is being discussed here.) >> >> > >Take a look here for an interesting argument. > >http://www.hrrc.org/gklein_statement.html > >Also, I seem to recall some brilliant legal mind telling me that the DMCA was >expressly written so as to NOT interfere with the doctrine of Fair Use, as detailed >in the copyright act and as upheld in the Betamax decision of the SCOTUS. What the >DMCA does, however, is to completely eliminate the possibiblity of fair use, by >making it illegal to circumvent something that prevents fair use. Shades of UCITA? Dark days, I tell ya dark days and I don't need to be blind prophet to say so. Rares >-- >Dana J. Parker >Consultant >http://www.cdpage.com >Contributing editor/standards columnist >Emedia magazine >http://www.emediapro.net >DVD PRO Conference Chair >http://www.dvdpro.net >I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression >http://www.eff.org/cafe > >mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com > > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 20 23:07:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA13643 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 23:07:43 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA13640 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 23:07:38 -0500 Received: from [38.32.79.97] (helo=ip97.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12Mk8n-0004SZ-00; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 23:08:09 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DINOSAUR War Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 04:07:05 GMT Message-ID: <38c4b5cc.45458916@mail.tiac.net> References: <200002182007.MAA03582@ns1.filetron.com> <38B0827A.121ED1B4@stad.dsl.nl> In-Reply-To: <38B0827A.121ED1B4@stad.dsl.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id XAA13641 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 01:10:34 +0100, Tom wrote: >> Three words: This Is War! >> Rares > >Hi! >I think the word is out there "This is WAR"... >So lets go and kill this basterd:) >how?an can we DO it? >well.. Just to clarify, there's two wars implied here. One is about the proposed HDCP http://www.digital-cp.com/ and DCTP (see the link Dana mentioned at HRRC.) This is a war we can scream about all we want as few people are yet concious of the acronyms. The other war is the more delicate one that is now more urgent and we could probably screw up with inappropriate noise and actions. This is the current DeCSS/css-auth battle. This is largely a PR war as well as a battle for hearts and minds (and markets.) The MPAA shows every sign of hanging itself in this battle. But we do need to educate consumers. Many of you are probably seasoned activists who have a better idea of how to proceed than I do. >Compared to what Ghandi did to the English.. >Peace of cake >needs a few numbers and enough determination to do the job >speaking about numbers, we can easily outnumber Ghandi.. First we need Ghandi-like self-control. one idea: LiViD minus CSS. Somewhere along the line we'll have to decide if we just want access to Hollywood's content, or a market free from its control. There are lots of film directors who are not part of this association. They mostly have little say in whether they can get a "real" DVD made of their independent effort. Remember, the MPAA companies are not the makers of the content-- they're more akin to venture capitalists, setting up financing and a corporate shell for each film project. There is also a tremendous wave of DV and NLE-enabled independent filmmaking occurring that may not be able to beat Hollywood's distribution system, but deserves a shot. A CSS-free LiViD would be the start of a PC market that rewards accessible media. Right now, CSS-enabled LiViD rewards the MPAA with a new market it doesn't deserve. Each "make install" enables a user, but also colonizes him/her as a co-dependent. [If they really had a clue, they'd be passing out floppies at playgrounds...] This is not just an MPEG player, but a media preference. The increasing availability of region #0 titles and inexpensive, region-switchable players is a sign that the MPAA losing its grip. We should try to hasten this process wherever we can with education and positive reinforcement. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 00:46:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA08909 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:46:29 -0500 Received: from yakko.cs.wmich.edu (root@yakko.cs.wmich.edu [141.218.40.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA08818 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:46:28 -0500 Received: (from frogfarm@localhost) by yakko.cs.wmich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21059 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:46:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:46:59 -0500 From: damaged justice To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DINOSAUR War Message-ID: <20000221004659.A21036@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> References: <200002182007.MAA03582@ns1.filetron.com> <38B0827A.121ED1B4@stad.dsl.nl> <38c4b5cc.45458916@mail.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38c4b5cc.45458916@mail.tiac.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Quoting Ron Gustavson (rongus@tiac.net): > > Somewhere along the line we'll have to decide if we just want > access to Hollywood's content, or a market free from its control. > > There are lots of film directors who are not part of this association. > They mostly have little say in whether they can get a "real" DVD made > of their independent effort. > > Remember, the MPAA companies are not the makers of the content-- > they're more akin to venture capitalists, setting up financing and a > corporate shell for each film project. > > There is also a tremendous wave of DV and NLE-enabled > independent filmmaking occurring that may not be able to beat > Hollywood's distribution system, but deserves a shot. A market free of onerous control is what I'm shooting for. Nore fundamental. Besides, most of what Hollywood puts out is barely worth the raw price of the media. With more independent filmmakers, we the viewing public have a better chance of movies that don't insult our intelligence. > The increasing availability of region #0 titles and inexpensive, > region-switchable players is a sign that the MPAA losing its grip. If offering regionless players for sale to Joe Sixpack is truly violating some sort of licensing agreement, why aren't we seeing the DVDCCA, et al, bursting through the doors of these people and shutting them down and carting away their goods, a la Ramsey Electronics? Politely forcing the issue means demanding honest answers to simple questions such as these. -- I let go of the law, and people become honest / I let go of economics, and people become prosperous / I let go of religion, and people become serene / I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass. .oOo. [Tao Te Ching, Chapter 57, Stephen Mitchell translation] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 01:08:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA18048 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 01:08:58 -0500 Received: from suba01.suba.com (suba01.suba.com [198.87.202.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA18045 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 01:08:57 -0500 Received: from bugbug (max01-51.suba.com [206.69.121.243]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id AAA28555 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:09:28 -0600 (CST) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:08:23 -0600 Message-ID: <000001bf7c32$0f99a600$f37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <20000220174929.B670@localhost> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hi everyone, new here, I'm sparkane. IANAL. I have a question. (By the way, will someone please let me know if this is not the proper way to contribute, I already have had a problem signing up to the discussion and I am not sure if any of my wires are still crossed.) My question is in regard to a statement I see made below, and which has been made previously in the brainstorming, about the MPAA not having to attack on the basis of copyright infringement, but only on the premise that the DMCA disallows access to a work. If the MPAA presses that approach, isn't that what we want them to do? I mean, if we take them on on that ground alone (which I understand is not the plan, goodgood), we lose. And if they were to state that there had actually been copyright infringement, while disingenuous or stupid, it might still confuse things enough that the argument would be harder. It seems to me that that is the whole issue, the whole problem with the DMCA, that it is trying to tie access to a work to infringing copyright of a work. How can the two not be associated in any understanding of the DMCA? Wrong as it is, there was obviously much effort on the part of its creators to safeguard consumers' and others' rights. If I am wrong, can someone explain to me how you get from treating access as it might contribute to an infringing act, which is what I understand the DMCA to forbid (maybe not explicitly, but overall, through the various caveats), to access in general being forbid? By showing this, isn't the defense portraying the MPAA as a group of money-grubbing pirates who are either honestly clueless or else clueless aforethought? Isn't that the idea? To show that the MPAA is willing to ignore an entire legal HISTORY in order to prosecute persons whose actions haven't caused them to lose a cent (as I believe the gentleman at Time/Warner admits), and in at least 3 out of 4 (I think) cases, didn't intend to make them lose a cent? Okay, sorry, this thing gets me all worked up. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Paul Fenimore > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 6:49 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right > > > Sorry for aggravation, but I was trying to correct what I saw as > something the MPAA would come along later and say, "Aha! These > bozos don't even know that DeCSS could be used to make an illegal > public performance. See, here they imply that the only copyright issue > is copying." Not that the MPAA's point would even be relevant, given > that a stock player could do the same thing. But I don't think that > would stop them from saying something like the words above in public. > > If you still think my point off-base, then I'll just have to let it > lay where it is. > > > Paul > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 12:45:05PM -0800, David A. Wagner wrote: > > What you seem as though you may be missing is that the NY case isn't > > (just) about copyright infringment, it's about circumvention under > > the DMCA. As far as I can tell, the DMCA apparently provides a totally > > separate offense, which does not require the plaintiffs to prove that > > any copyright infringement has actually occurred. So you can quote from > > the copyright code all you like, but it's not clear to me whether those > > quotes will be relevant to the legal case under the DMCA or not. > > > > This is one example of why, as much as some of us might like to believe > > otherwise, I suspect this case will depend primarily on who has got the > > smartest lawyers, rather than who has got the smartest computer geeks. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 05:53:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA07961 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 05:53:51 -0500 Received: from mx1.lublin.pl (mx1.lublin.pl [212.182.63.76]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA07958 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 05:53:48 -0500 Received: from pa89.lublin.ppp.tpnet.pl ([212.160.36.89]:1540 "EHLO ajax.umcs.lublin.pl" ident: "NO-IDENT-SERVICE[2]" smtp-auth: "gstaniak%ajax.umcs.lublin.pl" TLS-CIPHER: "EXP-RC4-MD5 keybits 40 version TLSv1/SSLv3") by krupik.man.lublin.pl with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:53:41 +0100 X-Comment: RFC 2476 MSA function at msa.lublin.pl logged sender identity as: gstaniak%ajax.umcs.lublin.pl Message-ID: <38AC5EF1.D5EDD85F@ajax.umcs.lublin.pl> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:49:53 +0100 From: Grzegorz Staniak Organization: w domu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [pl] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: pl,en,ru,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Off-topic: Open Law discussions References: <38A97A7A.EEC57C77@sympatico.ca> <20000215115707.J1781@nacs.net> <38A99CB5.303E43DA@bigbrother.net> <20000216163217.A4094@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> <001101bf7898$7dae4bc0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> <001a01bf789c$263063c0$6433288a@city.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Howard Richardson wrote: [...] > We need to have something like a central web page where people can submit > suggestions for approaches to each of the issues and then each of these > suggestions can have it's own discussion thread and a moderating voting > system, where people vote up or down the suggestions that are the best. > Maybe lawyers could have more moderation points than "casuals"? > > Once a suggestion has reached a certain score it can be deemed "correct" > and then should be moved to a list of agreed points where it can stay, and > discussion can then focus on the newer points. The agreed points could > maybe be revised monthly in light of new discussions. > > Does this sound like a better model to you than ad-hoc mailing lists? Please don't do that. Or if you decide to do that - to move the discussion to a web forum - provide a backend capable of serving flat-mode all-in-one thread files, containg a day's traffic for a specific thread, preferably compressed, so that I could donwload a whole thread just like I download a compressed tarball of my daily mail. Otherwise you cut out lurkers like myself, who live in countries where telecoms still charge by minute. I just couldn't afford following the discussions online. > Howard Richardson, > City University. Regards, -- Grzegorz Staniak From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 08:39:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA08349 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:39:14 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA08346 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:39:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 18313 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 13:43:11 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:43:11 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000221084311.Q11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000218173546.22521.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000218173546.22521.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:35:46AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:35:46AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > --- dhudson wrote: > > > Yes, I'm claiming there is no circumvention by the definition in > > > 1201(a)(3)(A), since the result of compiling DeCSS and then using > > > the executible is within the "view" copyright authority granted. > You do > > > not need a licence to "break CSS" or to "distribute DeCSS". These > > > are covered under "right to liberty" unless they violate the law. I > > > note that the DVD copyright does NOT state that you may > > > descrambe using authorized players, so my arguement holds or you > > > have no access, period. > > > > My only point is the DMCA prohibiting, by its words, -all- > > circumvention, not just circumvention to break copyright: the > statute > > bans anything which circumvents access, whether you have a license to > > view the underlying work or not. > > [...] After all, the > > MPAA provides a license to you (the consumer) to the underlying > > copyrighted work, and the MPAA provides, though the DVD-CCA, a > > license to the CSS code, to a limited number of DVD and software > > providers. They are legally two different beasts. > > Again, my point is that the access provided by DeCSS is > non-circumventing access and is thereby not covered by the prohibition > against '-all- circumvention'. There is a legal "access control" mechanism - CSS - attached to DVD content. Non-circumventing access would, by definition, be working within CSS to gain access to underlying content. The only way to do this would be with a licensed key; DeCSS does not do this. It does an end-run around CSS to unscramble the content without the need for a key. If there's anything that would constitute circumventing access in a court of law, this would be it. This would make a better argument if the Xing key had been appropriated and were being used in an open source player. The "reverse engineering" exemption might even apply here - we'd certainly have a much better chance of arguing the "system interoperability" angle (which, contrary to some beliefs here, was not made up by the MPAA - it's there in black and white in Sec. 12). Note to previous poster (dhudson): the DMCA does not ban circumvention itself until next year. The current case is about trafficking in circumvention technology, which is a different crime. > The DVD alone, as the sole item > exchanged with the copyright holder, must provide the full conditions > that determine which access is circumvention and which access is > non-circumvention. The player, which is a separate product from a party > other than the DVD copyright holder cannot provide that grant. Unfortunately, this isn't a copyright infringement case. They're not suing because someone circumvented access to gain unlawful access to content - they're suing because people are distributing a device which could. Arguing that the DVD copyright allows access would be a good argument for an infringement case, but has no bearing here. This is one of the truly evil points of Section 12 - where there was one crime, now there is two. And you don't have to be guilty of both to be guilty of one. There's this whole "guilt from possibility of guilt" principle going on here that's just plain ugly, and makes this a bad law. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 08:42:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA09314 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:42:50 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA09311 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:42:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 18321 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 13:46:57 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:46:57 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000221084657.R11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000218174720.27841.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000218174720.27841.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:47:20AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:47:20AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > Wow. I didn't realize the Librarian had made a determination in this > > case. That was quick. I don't suppose you have a URL to back up > > that assertion? > > The LOC has not made any determination one way or the other. Until such > determination is made, I don't think the court should preemt the > decision. The law grants exclusive power to the LOC to determine what > is and what is not a non-infringing use. I'm saying the law is an > overly broad restraint of speech for this reason until the LOC speaks. If we know there's a decision coming, then I'd tend to agree. But as I understand it, the Librarian's decision only affects what is considered to be copyright infringement versus fair use. Seeing that this case isn't about copyright infringement, I don't see why the Librarian even gets involved. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 08:47:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA10172 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:47:53 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10167 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:47:51 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12MtCH-0004Wd-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:48:21 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:48:21 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: <20000221084311.Q11768@linuxpower.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > This would make a better argument if the Xing key had been appropriated > and were being used in an open source player. The "reverse engineering" > exemption might even apply here - we'd certainly have a much better > chance of arguing the "system interoperability" angle (which, contrary > to some beliefs here, was not made up by the MPAA - it's there in black > and white in Sec. 12). DeCSS was written before the key-less access methods were devised, and it seems to have been fairly well established in the CA case that DeCSS does contain the Xing player key. ( I am not sure if this is the _only_ key it contains ) frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 09:06:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA13734 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:06:06 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA13731 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:06:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 18377 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 14:10:17 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:10:17 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 10:33:04AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 10:33:04AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Which is untrue, since the current legal action in New York is being > > applied to the DeCSS Windows binary and not the css-auth source > > code. > > If the outcome of the case is that distribution of the DeCSS binary is > made illegal, but the source code form is allowed, I will consider that > a victory. I'm sure that will be of great comfort to those guys in New York being sued, that even though they are found guilty you will still see it as a victory. > > > it qualifies for the reverse engineering exception, > > > > It does?? Funny, I seem to recall that "reverse engineering for > > reasons of system interoperability" directly applies to computer > software > - not to copyrighted media. > > The plaintiffs fabricated this arguement. The defendants, who had no > time to prepare, did not present any counter arguement during the > preliminary injuction hearing. The judge accepted the arguement without > critical analysis and thereby butchered the law. Of course they fabricated the argument. That's what lawyers do - fabricate arguments. That's what we're doing here. But the fact is, this particular argument has paper backing it up. > First of all, it IS the decryption software that is reverse engineered, > so EVEN under this mistaken reading of the law, DeCSS is ok. The > arguement presented seems to say it is illegal to reverse engineer the > movie. DeCSS is not a movie. In fact 'reverse engineer the movie' are a > bunch of words with no meaning. > > Secondly, the "computer program's only" arguement is flat out wrong. > While it is true that parts of 1201(f)(1) speak about access > circumvention 'to a particular portion of that program', this is not > the part of the law that we seek haven in. Just for fun, let's look at 1201(f)(1) of Title 17 of the U.S. Code: "(f) Reverse Engineering. - (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 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." You're right, we're not seeking haven here. We'd be fools to try. > > There is no such reference in 1201(f)(2): which says in relevant part: > "... a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent > a technological measure, ... for the purpose of enabling > interoperability of an independently created computer program with > other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such > interoperability ..." Okay, now 1201(f)(2): "(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 identification 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." Okay, I'll give you this one. If the current issue were about these guys creating DeCSS and then getting jumped on for it, this piece of text would directly apply. The "independently created computer program" would be the LiVid player. But there are weaknesses. DeCSS doesn't enable the interoperation of LiVid with other Linux software, only the interoperation of LiVid with DVD media. As a standalone MPEG 2 player, LiVid runs just fine on Linux; there are no system interoperability issues here. CSS does not prevent LiVid from working with other Linux applications - and DeCSS doesn't do anything to enable it. This clause would more directly apply to a Win2K-Samba issue. > This part of Kaplan's explanation made me livid. He endorses nonsense > and fairy tales made up by the plaintiffs. Bryan, I know this is an emotional issue, but calm it down. The plaintiffs are not making this up as they go along, and it's arrogance to think they are. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 09:16:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA15712 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:16:39 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA15709 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:16:38 -0500 Received: (qmail 18385 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 14:20:50 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:20:50 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000221092050.T11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <20000217175053.K4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> <20000217212840.Q4856@cty-alum.org> <38ADEEF4.36F0E21B@wilcoxon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38ADEEF4.36F0E21B@wilcoxon.org>; from Scot E. Wilcoxon on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 07:16:36PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 07:16:36PM -0600, Scot E. Wilcoxon wrote: > Don't all retail DVD players include a disk with a licensed CSS player, > thus buying a retail DVD player does not avoid license fees? > > Does paying for a licensed player imply having authorized access? Probably, much the same as owning software burns of arcade ROM's isn't necessarily illegal if you happen to have legally purchased the ROM seperately. Problem is, this isn't an infringement case. DeCSS is a technology that opens the doors to people who *haven't* legally purchased the technology. That's mostly likely why this is being prosecuted as a technology trafficking case rather than an infringement one. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 09:24:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA18480 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:24:37 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA18477 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:24:35 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Mtls-0006NK-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:25:08 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:25:08 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA In-Reply-To: <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Okay, I'll give you this one. If the current issue were about these > guys creating DeCSS and then getting jumped on for it, this piece of > text would directly apply. The "independently created computer > program" would be the LiVid player. But there are weaknesses. > > DeCSS doesn't enable the interoperation of LiVid with other Linux > software, only the interoperation of LiVid with DVD media. As a > standalone MPEG 2 player, LiVid runs just fine on Linux; there are > no system interoperability issues here. CSS does not prevent LiVid > from working with other Linux applications - and DeCSS doesn't do > anything to enable it. We should then argue that DeCSS seeks to interoperate with whatever program / process that CSS encoded the DVD in the first place. Video -> mpeg -> CSS encoder -> DVD -> sanctioned player. LiViD interoperates with the mpeg stage, but is incompatible with the output from the CSS encoder, so we need a program that interoperates with the encoder: video -> mpeg -> CSS encoder -> DVD -> DeCSS -> LiViD player | | ___interoperation___ It isn't too far fetched, except it is the kind of interoperation that the MPAA doesn't want to see, and therefore crafted the DMCA in an attempt to snuffle it. frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 09:33:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA20982 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:33:30 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA20979 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:33:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 18399 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 14:37:41 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:37:41 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Layman's explanation please? Message-ID: <20000221093741.U11768@linuxpower.org> References: <187D08B4266E3D1178140005B8876857@machineman.acmecity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <187D08B4266E3D1178140005B8876857@machineman.acmecity.com>; from machine man on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 05:56:16PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 05:56:16PM -0800, machine man wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm just a simple man, so most of the arguments in the transcript > from the New York case escaped me. > > Can someone tell me if my story is straight? > If I understand it properly, the act of reverse-engineering the DVD > encryption scheme was not at issue. It was the fact that the Digital > Millenium act somehow outlaws programs that break encryption of > copyrighted material. So all the issues that the lawyers had were > basically moot. And in fact, they didn't do certain things, > like submit some papers that were required, and because of this, > they couldn't present certain evidence. Does this happen often? The DMCA doesn't outlaw programs. It outlaws the trafficking of some programs, if those programs are designed to circumvent access control devices on copyrighted material. You can make any program you want, so long as you don't go around distributing it. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 09:36:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA21393 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:36:26 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA21390 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:36:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 18407 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 14:40:36 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:40:36 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000221094036.V11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217132921.C4856@cty-alum.org> <20000217202345.E11768@linuxpower.org> <4.3.0.20000217204613.0244b710@pop.webcom.com> <20000217212821.G11768@linuxpower.org> <4.3.0.20000218004025.01f4a7f0@pop.webcom.com> <20000218202006.K11768@linuxpower.org> <200002190142.UAA22184@fb04.eng00.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002190142.UAA22184@fb04.eng00.mindspring.net>; from John Young on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 08:36:53PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 08:36:53PM -0500, John Young wrote: > Rob Warren asked Declan: > > >Do you by any chance have URL to the legal reference? I'd like to see it. > >I'm mostly drawing from a few trade magazine articles from 1996, in which > >a point that keeps coming back is concern about export regs and red tape. > > Declan's laid up in a San Francisco opium den with PECSENC addicts, > so here's a lead: > > Excerpted from the Export Administration Regulations > > http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html > > Search on "copyright" > > ----- > > Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 - Category 5 - Telecommunications and > "Information Security" > > CATEGORY 5 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND "INFORMATION SECURITY" > > II. "Information Security" > > A. SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS > > List of Items Controlled > > This entry does not control: > > ... > > (d) Equipment where the cryptographic > capability is not user-accessible and > which is specially designed and limited to > allow any of the following: > (1) Execution of copy-protected > "software"; > (2) Access to any of the following: > (a) Copy-protected read-only > media; or > (b) Information stored in > encrypted form on media (e.g., in > connection with the protection of > intellectual property rights) where the > media is offered for sale in identical > sets to the public; or > (3) One-time encryption of copyright > protected audio/video data; > > ----- If anyone is interested, this set of rules was amended in January. The new regs seem to shut down any export of encryption technology employing 64-bit symmetric cyphering or more. Check the same site as above and search for "cryptographic". You should get two hits, look at "Revisions to Encryption Items" and search for "Information Security" until you reach the amendment to the above passage. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 09:42:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA23328 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:42:39 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA23273 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:42:38 -0500 Received: (qmail 18413 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 14:46:51 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:46:51 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000221094651.W11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 10:11:42AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 10:11:42AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > You're ignoring part of 1201a3A. Here's the whole passage: > > > > "(A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to > > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or > > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a > > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright > > owner" > > I agree that descrambling occurs, so I don't see what I'm ignoring. I > think the MPAA is ignoring the "without the authority" part. You're arguing that silence implies consent. We'll see if the courts agree. > > I would say that the simple fact that the MPAA is suing over > > this sort of shows that this is being done without their > > authority. > > All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of > sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well what > we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA can't > retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright grant, even if > they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've granted "home viewing", > end of story. I'm not convinced that this is true. I think the courts may see things differently. For one thing, Title 17 seems to consider "access" as certainly governed by copyright, and copyright doesn't get relinquished just because you paid money for something. At any rate, it doesn't matter. No one is being sued for infringing access, only trafficking in circumvention tech. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 09:44:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24313 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:44:47 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA24310 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:44:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 18419 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 14:48:58 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:48:58 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000221094858.X11768@linuxpower.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Tim Neu on Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 02:42:51PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 02:42:51PM -0600, Tim Neu wrote: > > I don't know much of anything about law, but didn't Sony vs Betamax rule > that media shifting was "fair use"? How do you take away someone's legal > rights to use products and get away with it? By passing your own laws legalizing it, as the entertainment industry did in 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 09:47:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA25380 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:47:28 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA25355 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:47:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 18427 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 14:51:39 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:51:39 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000221095139.Y11768@linuxpower.org> References: <200002192321.PAB04985@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002192321.PAB04985@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 03:21:09PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 03:21:09PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > > Mr. Valenti give it up. :) > Content is content, media are media, and laws are laws. Laws > especially cannot contradict themselves. Laws contradict themselves all the time. Half of U.S. law contradicts the other half. Most of the time, that's what the courts are for - to try and reconcile the political agenda of one Congress with that of the next. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 10:01:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29287 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:01:24 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA29261 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:01:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 18476 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 15:05:35 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:05:35 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Are we going in circles? Message-ID: <20000221100535.Z11768@linuxpower.org> References: <200002200320.TAA17200@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002200320.TAA17200@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 07:20:15PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 07:20:15PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > jas@cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > > > >> To think in no way implies action. Leave that to fundies. Or to put it another way innocent until proven guilty. Premeditation is only valuable as a qualifying point after the act has been done or attempted. > >> > >> Note: Demonstration in discussion is not equal to acting out the > >> demonstration. Even then acting out the demonstration is not illegal > >> if the demonstration only a harmless demonstration. If you shoot at a > >> dummy in court, it may be tasteless and tactless but not illegal. If > >> you break into a computer that happens to be a demonstration piece or > >> someone's actual system but no harm is done, it is not illegal. > >> > > > >Just a point. It is illegal to "break into" a computer, irrelevant of the > >amount of harm done. > > I meant as part of a court demo. It would be illegal to destroy the computer or the OS itself in the proces.. But shooting a dummy in court would just be stupid, not illegal. > > >But this in no way detracts from the very valid point you make that >demonstration in discussion is not equal to acting out the demonstration. > > > > Incidentally, Rob Wareen, what do you think? You're the hardest to convince and I'm basing the strength of my arguments on that. I've been at work all weekend, but I'm back now. :) If I'm reading the above correctly, we're talking about two things: arguing the point that Section 12 presumes guilt from the possibility of guilt (i.e., guilty until proven innocent), and doing a court demonstration to show the act of decryption in the process of playing back legally-obtained media. Am I correct? If so, then the first point stands only if we are challenging Section 12 itself, and that's most likely not going to happen in Kaplan's court. I tend to agree with the principle itself; it's one of the reasons I don't like 12. But unless we're operating in a court venue that is willing to take responsibility for overturning an act of Congress based on constitutional grounds (i.e., innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc etc etc) then all this does is try and confuse the issue. As law and court decision stands, Section 12 does not imply a breach of due process and at this point Kaplan seems to be content enforcing the law as it stands. Doing any sort of court demonstration would be ridiculous in this venue, because all we can do then is prove that DeCSS is circumvention technology. The trafficking part of things has already been proven - that was easy. It'll be the last few nails in the case for the plaintiff and guarantee that we lose under Kaplan. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 10:05:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31126 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:05:59 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA31122 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:05:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 18484 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 15:10:11 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:10:11 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000221101011.A11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000218203324.L11768@linuxpower.org> <88n9fs$64k$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000219222723.N11768@linuxpower.org> <88nu5l$67b$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <88nu5l$67b$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from David A. Wagner on Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 09:30:29PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 09:30:29PM -0800, David A. Wagner wrote: > In article <20000219222723.N11768@linuxpower.org>, > wrote: > > I suspect, though, that the real problem in trying to claim a reverse > > engineering exemption is the fact that clean-room methodology was almost > > certainly not followed. > > What do you mean by `clean-room'? > It is not obvious to me what that phrase would mean in the context > of reverse engineering, e.g., of disassembling code to yield a > conceptual algorithm. > > Or are you suggesting that DeCSS itself should have been implemented > using a documented clean-room process, where one places a Chinese > Wall between the folks who do the reverse engineering and the folks > who do the re-implementation? I'm suggesting that any other reverse-engineering method would be difficult to argue as such. All the plaintiff's counsel would have to do in this case is make the distinction between "legitimate" reverse engineering and basic burgulary. If the judge bought that, then based on past legal citations (Phoenix vs. IBM, for example) the Chinese Wall/clean-room method would probably be the only one that the court would accept for that definition. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 10:10:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA32306 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:10:26 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA32302 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:10:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 18490 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 15:14:38 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:14:38 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000221101438.B11768@linuxpower.org> References: <38bc90eb.71315751@mail.tiac.net> <20000219233657.B4856@cty-alum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000219233657.B4856@cty-alum.org>; from Seth David Schoen on Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 11:36:57PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 11:36:57PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Ron Gustavson writes: > > > Would a version of LiViD that doesn't decrypt the content be a > > good exhibit? Do we have the right to watch the scrambled content? > > Maybe this will come in handy one day(?) > > Well, it's hard to play the content without decrypting it because the > encrypted content is compressed (MPEG, among other things). Without > decrypting it, you don't have meaningful video data. > > Without decrypting it, you can't decompress it (the encrypted MPEGs > are no longer valid MPEGs, I assume), and without decompressing it, you > can't find so much as a single pixel. Actually, LiVid without the decryption is just an MPEG-2 player. A court demonstration of the decryption in action would only prove that DeCSS is circumvention tech, and lock down the circumvention tech trafficking case in favor of the plaintiffs. A court demonstration of LiVid not decrypting would only show that DeCSS isn't necessary for LiVid to interoperate with other Linux software, thus nullifying the reverse engineering exemption on grounds on interoperability needs. Better to leave the computers at home for this one. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 11:22:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA23137 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:22:34 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA23134 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:22:33 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27468 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:22:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:22:04 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Xing hack is enough Message-ID: <20000221112203.Z10572@nacs.net> References: <38bf9c3d.74213366@mail.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38bf9c3d.74213366@mail.tiac.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:56:34AM +0000, Ron Gustavson wrote: > Linux users can do without drivers for a Winmodem and have to sign > license agreements to install, say, WordPerfect. Why not wait until > RedHat licenses a DVD viewer, or ATI provides one? And give me > more than it's the culture, stoopid. > (this is _so_ distasteful!) > It's the philosophy *and* the culture, stoopid ;-) Seriously, there are plenty of operating systems out there to choose from. BeOS isn't having a problem with DVD support, nor Windows, nor MacOS nor even DOS. Linux/*BSD are the only ones - the "free" operating systems. Most of us Linuxheads and BSDheads could have chosen different operating systems - say SCO or AIX or Solaris if we even want to stay within the *NIX area, but there are a few philosophical points for the people who choose Linux or *BSD: Relying on software licensed to us leaves a bad taste in our mouth. Why? Well let's explain... we have strong competition between Linux distributions based on a few facts: 1) Most distributions provide very little, if any, software which we couldn't commandeer and customize to a fasion which suits our purposes. 2) Some distributions provide a lot of custom and proprietary (read: not Open Source) software. These distributions basically "get in my way." They aren't useful to me from a business standpoint (as a consultant and Linux "reseller") since I can't very well fit them into the client's environment. 3) We aren't going to reward Linux distributions for locking up pieces of functionality. Nor will we reward independent applications providers with lock-ups on basic applications which should be shipped with the OS. This would quickly lead to the fragmentation of Linux; this is demonstrable - we have the fragmentation of UNIX in our history here. 4) Distributions don't want that sort of product differentiation, because they are smart enough (now) to realize that the UNIX vendors literally commited a sort of blind suicide by attempting it. It's a mix of philosophy and business sense here in one of the few areas where both come to the same conclusion: the customer gets all the control you can give him. There's all sorts of things I can do with an Open Source DVD player which might be requested by clients - from providing a keyword based search software which automatically determines a time index on a DVD from which to start playing (e.g. the digital multimedia encyclopedia), to software designed to make movie-viewing booths (never mind what they might be used for), to playing a DVD when an email arrives or something like that. None of those are great ideas, but the point is that it *is* innovation, which is something the Linux community holds dear to themselves. The bad ideas automagically weed themselves out when nobody is interested in them, and the good ideas automatically prosper. Personally, I have no idea what the customer will ask for, but if I have Open Source software and the customer has the money, I can provide it. And that, really, is the philosophy of Linux. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 11:37:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28076 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:37:56 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA28073 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:37:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 13015 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2000 16:33:45 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2000 16:33:45 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA03085; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:38:27 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:38:27 -0800 Message-Id: <200002211638.IAA03085@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Are we going in circles? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 07:20:15PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >I've been at work all weekend, but I'm back now. :) > >If I'm reading the above correctly, we're talking about two things: arguing the point >that Section 12 presumes guilt from the possibility of guilt (i.e., guilty until proven >innocent), and doing a court demonstration to show the act of decryption in the process >of playing back legally-obtained media. Am I correct? Yes and no. The demo was to state a principle. Our demo would be to show DeCSS is irrelevant. > >If so, then the first point stands only if we are challenging Section 12 itself, and >that's most likely not going to happen in Kaplan's court. I tend to agree with the >principle itself; it's one of the reasons I don't like 12. But unless we're operating >in a court venue that is willing to take responsibility for overturning an act of >Congress based on constitutional grounds (i.e., innocent until proven guilty, due >process, etc etc etc) then all this does is try and confuse the issue. As law and >court decision stands, Section 12 does not imply a breach of due process and at this >point Kaplan seems to be content enforcing the law as it stands. That's scary. That brings up another point. If we win, it gets appealed guaranteed. The MPAA is not going to give up that easily, which is why I fear we've barely begun to fight. >Doing any sort of court demonstration would be ridiculous in this venue, because all >we can do then is prove that DeCSS is circumvention technology. We can also prove it's irrelevant. >The trafficking part of things has already been proven - that was easy. >It'll be the last few nails in the case for the plaintiff and guarantee >that we lose under Kaplan. I'm not sure about this, but I can see a different problem. I mentioned the demonstration to state a principle and I do believe showing DeCSS is irrelevant on Windows boxes for copying is in our favor. The problem is: What the fsck is Linux? Kaplan doesn't have a clue as to what an OS (hint: made up of four very important layers) is. Most people don't. So showing this in Windows is going to prove DeCSS is irrelevant, but how's he going to tell white from black when someone types cp /mnt/dvd/Star_Trek.vob ~/, etc. Now imagine if this were a juried assault trial. You would need a projection screen the size of a movie theater's to explain to the jury all that you're doing. Kaplan might be less intimidated and confused but the situation still sucks if it's not enough for him to understand that in Windows no DeCSS is used, while in Unix you do need it. We'd have Kaplan seeing the opposite of what we're showing him. > > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris > Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 11:45:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30194 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:45:31 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA30191 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:45:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 29318 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Feb 2000 16:46:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000221164603.29317.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:46:03 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:46:03 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Right to read: Martin v. Struthers (1943). To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's the cases you sited Griswold v. Connecticut: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=381&invol=479 Martin v. Struthers: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=141 Oddly, though Griswold clearly states that "the right to read" among others exists, and attributes cites Martin v. Struthers, I couldn't find any direct quote in the latter that makes it explicit, although this is a fair conclusion. The case through out an ordinance which included a ban on door-to-door distribution of religeous pamplets. Griswold, however, does not mince words, and it is in fact a very well known case. Here's the relevant quote from Griswold v Connecticut: "By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143) and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195) - indeed the freedom of the entire university community. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 249-250, 261-263; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 112; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 369. Without [381 U.S. 479, 483] those peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure. And so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases." As a parting shot, I think there's a strong arguement that the right to read, examine, investigate, probe, and generally 'use' the purchased copyrighted work is granted by the "right to promote scientific progress" which is textually recognized by the copyright power. It is this right to which the grant of monopoly within the copyright is subordinate. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 12:20:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA05495 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:20:12 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA05492 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:20:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 4528 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Feb 2000 17:20:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:20:43 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:20:43 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- nospam@nospam.com wrote: > Circumvention and circumvention devices are prohibited even for works > for which the copyright has expired, information for which copyright > protection is not available, or works which are otherwise in the public > domain. This highlights a problem with the law: there is not a single copyright holder. If just one DVD movie was public domain or from an author who granted access, I think this should be enough to allow a circumvention tool. I don't know of any examples of the former, so I don't think the defendants have 'standing' to bring this arguement based on expired copyrights. See the other thread for my arguement about how many/most DVD's actually do grant playback access. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 13:19:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA20855 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:19:39 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA20852 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:19:38 -0500 Received: (qmail 19261 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2000 18:15:28 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2000 18:15:28 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18406; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:20:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:20:10 -0800 Message-Id: <200002211820.KAA18406@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:47:20AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >> --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> >> > Wow. I didn't realize the Librarian had made a determination in this >> > case. That was quick. I don't suppose you have a URL to back up >> > that assertion? >> >> The LOC has not made any determination one way or the other. Until such >> determination is made, I don't think the court should preemt the >> decision. The law grants exclusive power to the LOC to determine what >> is and what is not a non-infringing use. I'm saying the law is an >> overly broad restraint of speech for this reason until the LOC speaks. > >If we know there's a decision coming, then I'd tend to agree. But as I >understand it, the Librarian's decision only affects what is considered >to be copyright infringement versus fair use. Seeing that this case >isn't about copyright infringement, I don't see why the Librarian even >gets involved. > If we don't steer this case out of their little sandbox we're screwed. Incidentally for anyone reading this... I said we are screwed because you will effectively belong to a movie producers union in order to sell movies. >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 13:39:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA25574 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:39:59 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA25571 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:39:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 20416 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2000 18:35:48 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2000 18:35:48 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA20341; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:40:30 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:40:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200002211840.KAA20341@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 10:11:42AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >> --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> > You're ignoring part of 1201a3A. Here's the whole passage: >> > >> > "(A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to >> > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or >> > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a >> > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright >> > owner" >> >> I agree that descrambling occurs, so I don't see what I'm ignoring. I >> think the MPAA is ignoring the "without the authority" part. > >You're arguing that silence implies consent. We'll see if the courts >agree. > It works with trademarks and as Linus said on Kernel Traffic he hates being an ass about the littlest shit. So we need a middle ground hope it sticks. >> > I would say that the simple fact that the MPAA is suing over >> > this sort of shows that this is being done without their >> > authority. >> >> All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of >> sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well what >> we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA can't >> retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright grant, even if >> they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've granted "home viewing", >> end of story. > >I'm not convinced that this is true. I think the courts may see things >differently. For one thing, Title 17 seems to consider "access" as >certainly governed by copyright, and copyright doesn't get relinquished >just because you paid money for something. > >At any rate, it doesn't matter. No one is being sued for infringing access, >only trafficking in circumvention tech. Unless you can prove it was the MPAA who broke the code and downloaded all those DeCSS copies we're screwed. But anyway, back to building their case first before tearing it down. I don't think tearing down the invisible man will work. >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris > Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 13:42:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA25897 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:42:00 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA25893 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:41:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 16477 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Feb 2000 18:42:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20000221184233.16476.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:42:32 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:42:32 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > There is a legal "access control" mechanism - CSS - attached to DVD > content. False, CSS is not "attached" to DVD content. It is a separate product. It would be great if DVD's could descramble themselves. > Non-circumventing access would, by definition, be working > within CSS to gain access to underlying content. This is a circular arguement. "By definition", as you say, the words "non-circumventing" mean, following DMCA 1201(a)(3)(A), that somewhere an access grant is made that discriminates allowed vs. non-allowed access. Nowhere do you site the text of this grant, so your analysis of the implications of it have no supporting evidence. Indeed, this grant is precisely that following the copyright notice (and no other). Upon examination of this text we find that, in fact, no reference is made to any particular means of descrambling. > The "reverse engineering" exemption might even apply here - we'd > certainly have a much better chance of arguing the "system > interoperability" angle (which, contrary to some beliefs here, was not > made up by the MPAA - it's there in black and white in Sec. 12). I've read 1201(f)(2), and I do argue elsewhere, that it would apply even if DeCSS did actual circumvention, but this thread is about DeCSS being out of scope under 1201(a)(3)(A). BTW, I don't understand your "system interoperability" statement. 1201(f)(2) refers to interoperability of "programs" not "systems". > Unfortunately, this isn't a copyright infringement case. They're not > suing because someone circumvented access to gain unlawful access > to content - they're suing because people are distributing a device > which could. Arguing that the DVD copyright allows access would be a > good argument for an infringement case, but has no bearing here. The core issue in this thread is whether DeCSS access occurs without the authority of the copyright holder as required by 1201(a)(3)(A). The text following the copyright was sited not for relevance to copyright infringement (it wouldn't be needed anyway), but instead to show that DeCSS access is included in the non-circumventing access granted with authority of the copyright holder. This text following the copyright is not the copyright itself, but rather the sole origin of the grant of authority for access which is DEFINITIVE for determining whether a particular access technology is primarily for circumventing or non-circumventing purposes. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 13:48:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27662 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:48:32 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA27659 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:48:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 20918 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2000 18:44:21 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2000 18:44:21 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA21100; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:49:03 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:49:03 -0800 Message-Id: <200002211849.KAA21100@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Right to read: Martin v. Struthers (1943). Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: >Here's the cases you sited > >Griswold v. Connecticut: >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=381&invol=479 > >Martin v. Struthers: >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=141 > >Oddly, though Griswold clearly states that "the right to read" among >others exists, and attributes cites Martin v. Struthers, I couldn't >find any direct quote in the latter that makes it explicit, although >this is a fair conclusion. The case through out an ordinance which >included a ban on door-to-door distribution of religeous pamplets. > >Griswold, however, does not mince words, and it is in fact a very well >known case. Here's the relevant quote from Griswold v Connecticut: > >"By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's >children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force >of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, >the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a >private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with >the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available >knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only >the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right >to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143) >and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see >Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195) - indeed the freedom of the >entire university community. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, >249-250, 261-263; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 112; >Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 369. Without [381 U.S. 479, 483] >those peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure. And >so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases." > >As a parting shot, I think there's a strong arguement that the right to >read, examine, investigate, probe, and generally 'use' the purchased >copyrighted work is granted by the "right to promote scientific >progress" which is textually recognized by the copyright power. It is >this right to which the grant of monopoly within the copyright is >subordinate. Can you say DMCA rev 2.0? a la Mozilla (they threw out Netscape's original source) Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 13:49:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28935 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:49:47 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28932 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:49:46 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1AC5C76F4; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:50:45 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:21:18 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221094651.W11768@linuxpower.org> In-Reply-To: <20000221094651.W11768@linuxpower.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 10:11:42AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of > > sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well what > > we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA can't > > retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright grant, even if > > they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've granted "home viewing", > > end of story. > > I'm not convinced that this is true. I think the courts may see things > differently. For one thing, Title 17 seems to consider "access" as > certainly governed by copyright, and copyright doesn't get relinquished > just because you paid money for something. I disagree about that. I can't find anywhere where "access" is controled by copyright. Section 106 of Title 17 outlines the rights of copyright holders as: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. (4) and (5) might seem to apply, but I think that a good argument can be made that playing a DVD is not "public" performance. > At any rate, it doesn't matter. No one is being sued for infringing access, > only trafficking in circumvention tech. True, but if using that tech is not any kind of infringement, a case can be made that it does not illegally circumvent access controls. If the circumvention is legal, the distribution is legal. Or so I would hope. > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 14:13:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02455 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:13:05 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA02452 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:13:04 -0500 Received: from [38.32.79.8] (helo=ip8.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12MyH4-0006Qw-00; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:13:39 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DINOSAUR War Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:12:47 GMT Message-ID: <38b3848e.8261408@mail.tiac.net> References: <200002182007.MAA03582@ns1.filetron.com> <38B0827A.121ED1B4@stad.dsl.nl> <38c4b5cc.45458916@mail.tiac.net> <20000221004659.A21036@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> In-Reply-To: <20000221004659.A21036@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id OAA02453 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:46:59 -0500, damaged wrote: >A market free of onerous control is what I'm shooting for. Nore fundamental. >Besides, most of what Hollywood puts out is barely worth the raw price of the >media. With more independent filmmakers, we the viewing public have a better >chance of movies that don't insult our intelligence. I had written... [If they really had a clue, they'd be passing out floppies at playgrounds...] It's key that the MPAA is a non-profit. They don't operate like Microsoft, else they _would_ be distributing colonizing technology to schoolchildren. [Their member companies should take note of the market share lost without this expensive ongoing regulation--which antagonizes the customer.] Instead they are fear-mongers, occupying the buffer between DC and Hollywood. They convince Hollywood that it needs copy protection, then extort a price to deliver that. They convince Congress that it needs ratings, then use their collective power to deliver those. This is a natural role for Valenti, who was there at the Gulf of Tonkin, urging LBJ to shoot into the fog. (LBJ as the tragic hero, stalked by demons of the id) Ratings is really their stock in trade and where they have the most power to shape the world. It alway bothers me to start pissing about Hollywood because there is so much talent and creativity there in spite of the lousy business elements. The MPAA is the ultimate corrupter of this talent--forcing a template on producers and screenwriters and then performing a hatchet job on the finished product. Proxy-writing laws which nullify Supreme Court decisions and erase rights given to citizens is just another offense. It's really an organization who's time is over. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 14:14:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02756 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:14:15 -0500 Received: from emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (cc273095-a.hwrd1.md.home.com [24.3.46.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA02752 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:14:14 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA30649; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:14:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:14:48 -0500 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > >Okay, now 1201(f)(2): > >"(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 identification 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." > >Okay, I'll give you this one. If the current issue were about these >guys creating DeCSS and then getting jumped on for it, this piece of >text would directly apply. The "independently created computer >program" would be the LiVid player. But there are weaknesses. > >DeCSS doesn't enable the interoperation of LiVid with other Linux >software, only the interoperation of LiVid with DVD media. As a >standalone MPEG 2 player, LiVid runs just fine on Linux; there are >no system interoperability issues here. CSS does not prevent LiVid >from working with other Linux applications - and DeCSS doesn't do >anything to enable it. But CSS does prevent LiViD from being interoperable with DVD media encrypted with CSS. LiViD (without DeCSS) is not inteoperatable with "approved" software or "approved" dedicated DVD players. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 14:30:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09132 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:30:36 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA09129 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:30:35 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 51D8F76F4; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:31:35 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:23:54 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221094651.W11768@linuxpower.org> <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> In-Reply-To: <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022113313401.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu yes, I am replying to myself. On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, you wrote: > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 10:11:42AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > > I disagree about that. I can't find anywhere where "access" is controled by > copyright. Section 106 of Title 17 outlines the rights of copyright holders as: well, immediately after sending this the part you were quoting jumped out and nearly bit my face off... ;-) Funny, I had started looking in Chapter12 and moved to earlier parts to look for that. I guess a question would be if there are enough arguements based in the earlier sections of Title 17 that would force a more favorable interepretation of 1201. Could fair use be argued, using section 107 part (4) and saying that viewing the legally purchased movie causes no damage to the market for DVD's, and might even help it? I guess that's a whole other thread... > > > At any rate, it doesn't matter. No one is being sued for infringing access, > > only trafficking in circumvention tech. > > True, but if using that tech is not any kind of infringement, a case can be > made that it does not illegally circumvent access controls. If the > circumvention is legal, the distribution is legal. > > Or so I would hope. > > > Rob Warren > > greslin@linuxpower.org > > www.iag.net/~aleris > > -- > Steven Barker > scbarker@uiuc.edu > > Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu The worst cliques are those which consist of one man. -- G.B. Shaw From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 14:50:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA16173 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:50:29 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA16170 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:50:28 -0500 Received: (qmail 15555 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Feb 2000 19:50:49 -0000 Message-ID: <20000221195049.15554.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:50:49 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:50:49 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > I agree that descrambling occurs, so I don't see what I'm ignoring. > > I think the MPAA is ignoring the "without the authority" part. > > You're arguing that silence implies consent. We'll see if the courts > agree. How does the authorization 'for private home viewing only' constitute silence? If it is silence, what on the DVD authorizes it's new owner to use, say, the Xing player to view it? Be precise. Point to language somewhere that from the copyright holder that discriminates that Xing is authorized but DeCSS is not. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 14:56:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17749 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:56:20 -0500 Received: from dial181.roadrunner.com (dial181.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.181]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17746 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:56:17 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial181.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00699 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:59:35 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:59:34 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Right to read: Martin v. Struthers (1943). Message-ID: <20000221125934.A590@localhost> References: <20000221164603.29317.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000221164603.29317.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:46:03AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Thank you for posting the URL's to Martin and Griswold. On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:46:03AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: [ ... ] > Oddly, though Griswold clearly states that "the right to read" among > others exists, and attributes cites Martin v. Struthers, I couldn't > find any direct quote in the latter that makes it explicit, although > this is a fair conclusion. The case through out an ordinance which > included a ban on door-to-door distribution of religeous pamplets. I did not find the words "right to read" in Martin either; I didn't even find a paraphrase of this. The right to receive is there though. > Griswold, however, does not mince words, and it is in fact a very well > known case. Here's the relevant quote from Griswold v Connecticut: > > "By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's > children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force > of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, > the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a > private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with > the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available > knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only > the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right > to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143) > and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see > Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195) - indeed the freedom of the > entire university community. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, > 249-250, 261-263; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 112; > Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 369. Without [381 U.S. 479, 483] > those peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure. And > so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases." > > As a parting shot, I think there's a strong arguement that the right to > read, examine, investigate, probe, and generally 'use' the purchased > copyrighted work is granted by the "right to promote scientific > progress" which is textually recognized by the copyright power. It is > this right to which the grant of monopoly within the copyright is > subordinate. I agree with you that "promote" supports the rights of reading, examination, inquiry, etc. but I also think we would be unduly limiting ourselves if we only make that claim. I expect that you already know (ii) below, I'm adding it here for completeness (i) limitations on reading, etc. are explicity outside the scope of the constitutional grant of copyright powers, but just as importantly (ii) The right to read and associated notions of the right not just to speek, but also to see, hear, read, think, etc. are explicitly protected by Amend.s I and IX, and that the scope of the right to read is much broader than copyright. (a) Martin was not a copyright case. (b) Griswold was about distributing info on contraceptives. (c) Weimann was freedom on inquiry, similar to, but not identical with reading. (d) Tinker was a "freedom of though" in school case. (e) Pico was a case limiting authority to _remove_ books from a school library. Again, no copyright in sight. (f) Lovell v. Griffin 303 U.S. 444, 452, 58 S.Ct. 666, 669; cited from Martin. The right to receive (expressive material). I don't have more to add to this list yet, but the cases all have some aspect that bears on the right to receive info, read, etc. If 17USC1201 is found to be constitutional, then _lots_ of case-law completely outside the scope of copyright is implicated. The common principle in all the cases, copyright clause connected or not, is about what happens after someone speaks --- others listen. I hope we can make a strong case that by regulating "access", a necessary prerequisite to reading and comprehension, 1201 is running its finger back and forth along the edges of a box of furies. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 15:09:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21985 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:09:26 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21982 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:09:25 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.16) with ESMTP id PAA02204 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id PAA28852; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:09:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:09:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor writes: > This highlights a problem with the law: there is not a single copyright > holder. If just one DVD movie was public domain or from an author who > granted access, I think this should be enough to allow a circumvention > tool. I don't know of any examples of the former, so I don't think the > defendants have 'standing' to bring this arguement based on expired > copyrights. Possible counterargument: the use of CSS to encrypt the content of a DVD demonstrates, by itself, the desire on the part of the copyright holder to control access --- a DVD author or publisher that desires to grant access, or to place the material on the DVD in the public domain, can simply publish the thing unencrypted. But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. Which suggests another angle of attack: with the DMCA in place, copyright holders still retain control over CSS-protected material even after the copyright has expired --- any use of the material which they have not authorized requires circumvention technology, both the distribution and the use of which are banned by the DMCA. So, it seems to me, the *effect* of the circumvention bans in the DMCA is to grant the copyright holders control of their content indefinitely, in contravention of the constitutional requirement that Congress grant "exclusive rights" of any kind to authors "for limited times" only. Comments? rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 15:26:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA28076 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:26:51 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA28071 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:26:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 4071 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Feb 2000 20:27:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20000221202722.4070.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:27:22 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:27:22 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > If we know there's a decision coming, then I'd tend to agree. But as > I understand it, the Librarian's decision only affects what is considered > to be copyright infringement versus fair use. Seeing that this case > isn't about copyright infringement, I don't see why the Librarian > even gets involved. Please read sections 1201(a)(1)(B,C,D,E). You'll see that the Librarian's decision is coming and that it will be used to grant exceptions to 1201(a)(1)(A) claims. However, 1201(a)(1)(E) restricts such exceptions to "this paragraph", which I was interpreting to mean 1201(a), but I think this may be wrong - I think 1201(a) is a sub-section and 1201(a)(1) is the paragraph referred too. This seems to be a very strange arrangement in the law: even when access itself is allowed, tools for such access may not be distributed. If this is true, people will have to build their own tools- very odd. I would expect instruction on how to build such tools (aka source code) would be allowed when the actual tool, the binary would not. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 15:40:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA32603 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:40:06 -0500 Received: from mail.firstlook.com ([209.0.190.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA32600 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:40:04 -0500 Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:38:23 -0800 Message-ID: From: Steven Levin To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:38:22 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, >whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. In the US, at least, since march of 1989, property is considered copyrighted forever unless the owner specifically places it in the public domain. However, it does raise an interesting issue. If a company places a public domain movie (for example, the Bicycle Thief) under CSS encryption, does one have the right to view it using DeCSS? Steve Levin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 15:48:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04497 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:48:32 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA04494 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:48:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 28652 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2000 20:44:22 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2000 20:44:22 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01052; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:49:03 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:49:03 -0800 Message-Id: <200002212049.MAA01052@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Building a sandcastle to be trashed afterwards Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Why do I feel like the best way to clear this up is to divert some efforts toward short ciruiting the second half the circumvention clause. To kill it before it goes into effect. Because right now we've got a few problems: 1. Not a copyright case and they're trying to keep it all in that perspective. 2. We need to widen the case but Kaplan won't take us seriously if we don't start to knock down a few walls from their case. Here's what we do have so far: 1. Not a copyright infringement case 2. Free speech in their view not relevant no 1st Amendment violation (they will distract away from this as much as possible) 3. Reverse engineering rights clauses not relevant this is not a case of Johansen vs DMCA but Johansen vs MPAA (DMCA is sleeping w/ the enemy remember) 4. DMCA is being extended to general access control (how are they holding this up?) 5. more to follow... Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 16:06:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14443 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:06:05 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA14440 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:06:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 19013 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 21:10:07 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:10:07 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Speech is irrelevant: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). Message-ID: <20000221161007.D11768@linuxpower.org> References: <200002200944.BAA32612@ns1.filetron.com> <20000220110503.A1037@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000220110503.A1037@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:05:03AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:05:03AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > Here is a reponse to one of the points. > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:44:59AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > > Speech is irrelevant (not easy for them to get away with but they might try). > > Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). (*) > > 1. "The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." > 2. "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, > contract the spectrum of available knowledge." > 3. "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing > addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren > marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." > > Note that 2. may be pertinent to region codes. These statements, as well as the Constitution, do not apply outside of the United States except possibly in a moral sense. If DVD region coding split the U.S. into different regions rather than the world, this would be easier to argue in court. As it stands, there are no restrictions being applied region-code-wise purely within the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. At the same time, the above statements obviously have limits and I feel are probably being taken out of context. The government has standing federal laws mandating stiff criminal penalties for unauthorized computer access. Reading the above statements the way you seem to be reading them, each of the three above statements would make it seem that the government cannot legally penalize you for breaking into a private computer and stealing sensitive corporate information, because that would interfere with the right to receive information and contract the spectrum of available knowledge. This is obviously untrue. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 16:19:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA19323 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:19:30 -0500 Received: from smtp11.bellglobal.com (smtp11.bellglobal.com [204.101.251.53]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA19295 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:19:29 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca (Toronto-ppp80370.sympatico.ca [216.209.15.3]) by smtp11.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA17721 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:25:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38B1ACFB.ACE7B621@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:24:11 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted References: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Possible counterargument: the use of CSS to encrypt the content of a > DVD demonstrates, by itself, the desire on the part of the copyright > holder to control access --- a DVD author or publisher that desires to > grant access, or to place the material on the DVD in the public > domain, can simply publish the thing unencrypted. You appear to be under a misapprehension that not desiring to control access to a work is equivalent (or even remotely related) to placing that work in the public domain. Someone who chooses not to control access (e.g. by releasing their film unencrypted) has not placed their movie in the public domain. They still have unquestioned copyright in that film. > But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, > whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. > Which suggests another angle of attack: with the DMCA in place, > copyright holders still retain control over CSS-protected material > even after the copyright has expired --- any use of the material which > they have not authorized requires circumvention technology, both the > distribution and the use of which are banned by the DMCA. So, it > seems to me, the *effect* of the circumvention bans in the DMCA is to > grant the copyright holders control of their content indefinitely, in > contravention of the constitutional requirement that Congress grant > "exclusive rights" of any kind to authors "for limited times" only. To be blunt, any -sane- court will tell you to come back in 50-90 years when such a circumstance as above has actually come to pass. Unless you can provide some evidence that film distributors are releasing public-domain films (I am not aware of any, though someone has suggested the Bicycle Thief) in encrypted form, then the above argument is a complete red herring. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 16:22:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA20085 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:22:23 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA20082 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:22:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 19021 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 21:26:34 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:26:34 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Message-ID: <20000221162634.E11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000217215710.H11768@linuxpower.org> <88ip62$vu9$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000218203324.L11768@linuxpower.org> <88n9fs$64k$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000219222723.N11768@linuxpower.org> <200002201841.NAA22123@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002201841.NAA22123@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from Robert S. Thau on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:41:03PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:41:03PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > > > I suspect, though, that the real problem in trying to claim a reverse > > engineering exemption is the fact that clean-room methodology was almost > > certainly not followed. If it was followed, it was in no way documented > > in any that would stand up in court. While practically it would still be > > "reverse engineering", it may not be legitimate RE in the eyes of the law. > > IANAL, but to the best of my knowledge, "clean room" doesn't mean that > the product being cloned is treated as a black box, and even in "clean > room" reverse engineering efforts, it usually isn't. Generally speaking, the whole idea of "clean room" RE is that the people designing and building the clone do not have direct access to the original material as they are doing it. One team strips it bare, the other team builds something new. That way the owner of the original design can't claim that the "clean" team stole their intellectual property in the creation of the new system, and since the "breakdown" team had nothing to do with the new system they aren't guilty either. I'd say for purposes of an RE exemption argument that this point is fairly relevant. > > So, getting back to the case of CSS, I think "clean room" methodology > would only be relevant if the authors of the Xing! player were > alleging copyright infringement, and to the best of my knowledge they > haven't. Instead, in the the California, trade-secret case, the MPAA > is relying on a shrink-wrap license which bars reverse engineering of > any kind whatever (and one of the biggest questions regarding that > case is whether the license was legally binding in the jurisdiction > where the reverse engineering allegedly occured). And my point, really, is that where the reverse engineering methology is irrelevant, so is the reverse engineering itself. We can't claim RE exemption and then say that the method is irrelevant; that won't work. All the plaintiff has to do then is challenge us on whether CSS was truly "reverse engineered" or if it was just vandalized. A judge will listen to that argument. > > In the New York case, where the DMCA comes into play, the plaintiffs' > central claim, as I understand it, is that the DMCA criminalizes > posession of *anything* that works like DeCSS (except a DVD player > made by one of their licensees). In this case, I'm not sure it > ultimately matters a whole lot whether the code was produced by > reverse engineering or by somebody's fairy godmother, since it is, per > the claim, illegal to possess it either way. Actually there is nothing at all illegal about possessing a copy of DeCSS. It's the manufacture and distrbution of said technology that is illegal under Section 12 of Title 17. (BTW, the DMCA is not the standing law - that is Title 17 of the U.S. Code. The EFF lawyers made this mistake in New York, showing up with differing copies of the DMCA instead of the standing law. This pissed off the judge.) At the same time, I think the MPAA would have a very hard time in federal court seeking an injunction against *any* potential CSS-breaking tech rather than naming a specific program. Not that the law wouldn't back them up, but by actually going after an entire class of software they'd make the case so big and so complicated that it would take forever to resolve and they couldn't possibly win. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 16:27:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA22437 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:27:06 -0500 Received: from smtp11.bellglobal.com (smtp11.bellglobal.com [204.101.251.53]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA22424 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:27:05 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca (Toronto-ppp80370.sympatico.ca [216.209.15.3]) by smtp11.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA20742 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:32:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38B1AEE4.76DDAD35@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:32:20 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steven Levin wrote: > > >But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, > >whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. > > In the US, at least, since march of 1989, property is considered copyrighted > forever unless the owner specifically places it in the public domain. Well, the 70 years (in some cases 95) granted under the Sonny Bono Protection Act is admittedly long, but it's not 'forever'. > If a company places a public domain movie (for example, the Bicycle Thief) > under CSS encryption, does one have the right to view it using DeCSS? When and if you find an -encrypted- DVD distribution of a public domain movie, this may be an issue, but otherwise it's a red herring, IMHO. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 16:43:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA30370 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:43:31 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA30366 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:43:28 -0500 Received: (qmail 19031 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 21:47:45 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:47:45 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Message-ID: <20000221164745.F11768@linuxpower.org> References: <200002201853.NAA06670@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> <88pjoh$6if$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <00022017020000.07427@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <00022017020000.07427@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu>; from Steven Barker on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 04:28:01PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 04:28:01PM -0600, Steven Barker wrote: > > Is the DMCA's ban on distributing such a device constitutional under the > first ammendment and the copyright clause? (not sure what the best arguments > are on this) > > Does DeCSS "circumvent" CSS, or is it's use covered under fair use or the > DVD licence? (This is what is being discussed here.) Better question: is there such a thing as a fair use defense when it comes to distributing anti-circumvention tech, rather than merely using it? Personally I don't see how, since distribution doesn't involve infringement and fair use is the argument that while an action may normally be infringement, in this particular case it is not. I suspect that rather than arguing that distribution *is* fair use, it would be easier to argue that it is *necessary* for fair use. Truth of the matter is, making a special law for access control that doesn't require infringement makes software like DeCSS inevitable and necessary. Without access control circumvention tools, it becomes impossible to exercise fair use over copyrighted media. The most you can do is use the media the way the owner wants it used. Section 12 forces individuals who want to exercise their legal fair use rights to become federal criminals in order to do so. > Well, so of it will be who's lawyers can get the most work done to supposrt > their case. If us computer geeks can help them out a little bit by working out > some of the arguments and reading over relevant cases, then they will be a > little bit more prepared. I would really love to know if anyone from the EFF is even reading this. I'd hate to think that we're just burning brain cells here while the EFF lawyers are rehashing "reverse engineering is exempt" arguments. So how about it, EFF? Are you following this mailing list? If so, just rap on the window three times. We'll rap back twice to let you know we heard you. If you are there, please: 1. Show up with copies of Title 17 rather than the DMCA, since the DMCA was the pre-enacted bill and Title 17 is the standing law. Make sure you all have identical copies. 2. Don't set up a demonstration of DeCSS or LiVid in court. Under Kaplan, that's a no-win scenario. Be prepared for the possibility that the plaintiff may in fact do this themselves, since it helps their case more than it does ours. 3. Don't argue that DeCSS distribution is fair use or any other defense against infringement, since this isn't about infringement. Instead argue that this law makes federal criminals out of law-abiding citizens. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 16:48:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31628 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:48:21 -0500 Received: from titan.golden.net (titan.golden.net [199.166.210.90]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA31625 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:48:20 -0500 Received: from [209.183.131.73] (AS52-17-73.cas-kit.golden.net [209.183.131.73]) by titan.golden.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23927 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:43:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002212143.QAA23927@titan.golden.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:45:37 -0500 Subject: [dvd-discuss] Thanks from a Journalist From: "Sandeep S. Atwal" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Many thanks to everyone who pitched in with clarifications and corrections on my DVD article. It supports my theory that if most journalists weren't so fucking lazy and did a little work, they'd incur less wrath from the groups they pretend to cover. I can declare my first experience with "open source journalism" a success. Take care, Sandy ----------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Atwal c/o Echo Weekly 24 Erb St. E Waterloo, ON N2J 1L6 Phone: 519.725.0430 e-mail: echomag@golden.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 16:57:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01064 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:57:45 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA01061 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:57:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 19082 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 22:01:57 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:01:57 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Message-ID: <20000221170157.G11768@linuxpower.org> References: <200002202254.RAA05240@gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu> <20000220184944.A19522@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> <00022018143000.07664@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <00022018143000.07664@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu>; from Steven Barker on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 05:59:54PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 05:59:54PM -0600, Steven Barker wrote: > On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, you wrote: > > Quoting Douglas Hudson (DHudson@law.gwu.edu): > > >counseling those engaging in civil disobedience on how to stay within the law > > > > Is not the essence of civil disobedience to openly and willfully break the law > > in question? > > I think the purpose of civil disobedience is to call attention to the injustice > of bad laws. The point is not to break the law, but to get the law changed. I think if Henry David Thoreau were alive today he'd passionately disagree with you. Civil disobedience without breaking the law isn't civil disobedience; it's politics. You either work within the system or you don't. In a very real way, civil disobedience isn't a political tool - it is an act of conscience. Thoreau wasn't trying to singlehandedly abolish slavery; he simply couldn't live with knowing that his money was going to it's continuance. Thoreau actually went to jail briefly in 1846 for refusing to pay taxes, because he felt that he could not financially support a government which itself supported the practice of slavery. It was over the next few years he gave lectures about this experience until finally these ideas formed into his essay "Civil Disobedience". That essay later inspired both Tolstoy and Ghandi; it's ideas were instrumental in getting real civil rights passed in this country over the course of the next century and a half. I would recommend that everyone here read this essay, immediately. You can pick it up in any collection of Thoreau's works in any bookstore for less than ten U.S. dollars. It's usually bundled with "Walden". Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 16:58:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01399 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:58:05 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01396 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:58:05 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112] (may be forged)) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA09795 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:58:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:58:37 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> References: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 03:09 PM 2/21/00 -0500, rst@ai.mit.edu wrote: >But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, >whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. >Which suggests another angle of attack: with the DMCA in place, >copyright holders still retain control over CSS-protected material >even after the copyright has expired --- any use of the material which >they have not authorized requires circumvention technology, both the >distribution and the use of which are banned by the DMCA. So, it >seems to me, the *effect* of the circumvention bans in the DMCA is to >grant the copyright holders control of their content indefinitely, in >contravention of the constitutional requirement that Congress grant >"exclusive rights" of any kind to authors "for limited times" only. It sounds like the start of a good "overbreadth" or misuse argument -- that the DMCA allows authors/content producers to lock up much more material than the Copyright Act does. It parallels the fair use claim in saying CSS permits greater protectionism, with less public benefit, than the copyright bargain mandates. If Congressional power to pass the DMCA is founded in copyright, then the DMCA goes too far in preventing distribution of a device to circumvent an access control only one of whose functions is to protect a copyright. One problem, it seems to me, is that this is a very fact-based claim. The courts will downplay the possibility of CSS-protecting public domain works, absent evidence that the studios are _actually_ using CSS to protect unprotectable content. Instead, they'll say that we should come back and enjoin the MPAA when its members try to do so. I think this is a point worth pushing more on, either for factual examples or for other indications of overbreadth. We argue that courts must find a way to enforce non-copyright-infringing access -- by reading into the DMCA additional defenses or exceptions -- if they want to save any of the Act from constitutional problems. --Wendy wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:04:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03993 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:04:55 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA03976 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:04:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 18702 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Feb 2000 22:05:25 -0000 Message-ID: <20000221220525.18701.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:05:25 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:05:25 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > I'm sure that will be of great comfort to those guys in New York > being sued, that even though they are found guilty you will still see it as > a victory. FIrst, they won't be found "guilty" since this is a civil not criminal matter :-] Ok, nit-pick mode off. To be honest, I'm involved in this to promote the civil liberties of the open source community. Ultimately, I want to be able to freely download playback code and use it to watch movies on my linux box. I don't really give a damn about www.dvd-copy.com , nor is my goal to provide them "comfort". If I was the MPAA, I'd hammer most of the defenses that we're offering as non-applicable to dvd-copy.com. Let me play Devil's advocate (I'm tired of you having all the fun). 1) dvd-copy.com's intent is to "trade DVD movie files over the Internet", so they are marketing DeCSS for non-fair use copyright infringement. Any defenses based on fair-use or other right of the copyright licencsee fail. 2) dvd-copy.com played no traceable role in the reverse-engineering and doesn't even cite the software-interoperability as a benefit of DeCSS. 3) Even if DeCSS is speech, in the context of dvd-copy.com, it is incitement to violate copyright law. This mob leader doesn't yell "let's loot the stores", but rather let's "share your DVD with the world". As such it is non-free speech not protected by the 1st amendment. Well that was fun. If I was the EFF, I might settle or even drop dvd-copy.com from my representation to work a "good-guy, bad-guy" strategy contrasting 2600.com with them. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:07:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04742 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:07:15 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA04739 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:07:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 19091 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 22:11:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:11:31 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Message-ID: <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000220174929.B670@localhost> <000001bf7c32$0f99a600$f37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <000001bf7c32$0f99a600$f37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain>; from sparky on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:08:23AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Team - I think it's time we started putting together an FAQ. We've got new people coming into this discussion all the time, and the traffic on this list is doubling every few days. We're wasting a lot of time covering the same basic questions, i.e. is it infringement? does the RE exemption apply?, and we need to get past this. It's also too much to ask a newcomer to go back and read hundreds of messages before posting. So I'm volunteering here. Give me questions you think should be on the FAQ, and I'll write it up and put it on my own site. If Harvard wants to put it here too, great; then it will be an official FAQ. For the time being, we'll call this the Unofficial OpenLaw DVD FAQ. Questions, please. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:14:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06772 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:14:13 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06756 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:14:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02367 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:14:45 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:14:45 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Can we produce a CSS'd DVD with a PD movie on it? I would think that the copyright protection issue would go out the window if CSS was used to restrict access to a PD movie. Would a CSS'd DVD of a public performance of Shakespeare, for example, do the trick? The ideal situation in this case is to show a CSS-scrambled DVD of something that by it's very nature isn't copyrighted, a short-of-ideal situation would be to show something that is CSS-scrambled, but not licensed to or owned by any of the principals(sp?). On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Steven Levin wrote: > > >But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, > >whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. > > In the US, at least, since march of 1989, property is considered copyrighted > forever unless the owner specifically places it in the public domain. > > However, it does raise an interesting issue. > > If a company places a public domain movie (for example, the Bicycle Thief) > under CSS encryption, does one have the right to view it using DeCSS? > > Steve Levin > When you are having a bad day, and it seems like everybody is trying to tick you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle. Who is John galt? Galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:15:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07389 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:15:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.118.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07386 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:15:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00393 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:16:20 -0600 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:16:20 -0600 (CST) From: sam th X-Sender: sam@localhost.localdomain To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... In-Reply-To: <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Team - > > I think it's time we started putting together an FAQ. We've got new people > coming into this discussion all the time, and the traffic on this list is > doubling every few days. We're wasting a lot of time covering the same > basic questions, i.e. is it infringement? does the RE exemption apply?, and > we need to get past this. It's also too much to ask a newcomer to go back > and read hundreds of messages before posting. > > So I'm volunteering here. Give me questions you think should be on the FAQ, > and I'll write it up and put it on my own site. If Harvard wants to put it > here too, great; then it will be an official FAQ. > > For the time being, we'll call this the Unofficial OpenLaw DVD FAQ. > > Questions, please. > > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris > ---- 1) But isn't DeCSS covered under the reverse engineering exceptionto the DMCA? No. Sadly, the reverse engineering exception, 1201(f), applies only the defeating access controls on software, not access controls implemented in software. If we were trying to get at encrypted source code on DVD's, then it would apply, but we are trying to access movies instead. To quote from the Senate Committee Report on the DMCA "Section 1201(f) applies to computer programs as such, regardless of their medium of fixation, and not to works generally, such as music or audiovisual works, which may be fixed or distributed in digital form. ... The committe emphasizes that nothing in in those subsections can be read to authorize the circumvention of any technological protection measure that controls access to any work other than a computer program." ---- I am not sure we should even bother to include in the FAQ stuff about the encryption resarch exemption, as that is so obviously irrelevant to the case. sam th sytobinh@uchicago.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:15:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07595 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:15:22 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA07579 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:15:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 19097 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 22:19:35 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:19:35 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Are we going in circles? Message-ID: <20000221171935.I11768@linuxpower.org> References: <200002211638.IAA03085@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002211638.IAA03085@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:38:27AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:38:27AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 07:20:15PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > >I've been at work all weekend, but I'm back now. :) > > > >If I'm reading the above correctly, we're talking about two things: arguing the point > >that Section 12 presumes guilt from the possibility of guilt (i.e., guilty until proven > >innocent), and doing a court demonstration to show the act of decryption in the process > >of playing back legally-obtained media. Am I correct? > > Yes and no. The demo was to state a principle. Our demo would be to show DeCSS is irrelevant. Lemme get this straight. Demoing DeCSS would demonstrate that DeCSS is irrelevant in getting around access control. What's wrong with this picture? We'd only prove that DeCSS is an access control circumvention device and that the MPAA has a case. > That's scary. That brings up another point. If we win, it gets appealed guaranteed. The MPAA is not going to give up that easily, which is why I fear we've barely begun to fight. > > >Doing any sort of court demonstration would be ridiculous in this venue, because all > >we can do then is prove that DeCSS is circumvention technology. > > We can also prove it's irrelevant. Irrelevant to what??? To our case?? Come on. Think, McFly, think; do you know what would happen if I handed in my homework in your handwriting? I'd be kicked out of school! :) Rob Warren, who watched BTTF too many times as a kid greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:16:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA08406 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:16:31 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA08337 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:16:30 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.16) with ESMTP id RAA15687 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:17:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA29699; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:17:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:17:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002212217.RAA29699@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: <38B1ACFB.ACE7B621@sympatico.ca> References: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <38B1ACFB.ACE7B621@sympatico.ca> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ian Hay writes: > "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > You appear to be under a misapprehension that not desiring to control > access to a work is equivalent (or even remotely related) to placing > that work in the public domain. Absolutely not --- copyrighted, unencrypted DVDs have been cited by name in this forum (e.g., the Criterion edition of Robocop). > Someone who chooses not to control > access (e.g. by releasing their film unencrypted) has not placed their > movie in the public domain. They still have unquestioned copyright in > that film. Which is not at all relevant to the point I was making --- that someone who *does* want to release their film into the public domain, and allow anyone to play it regardless of region-code machinery, is not blocked from doing so by CSS (as the person to whom I was replying claimed), since they can simply choose not to use it. > > But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, > > whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. > > Which suggests another angle of attack: with the DMCA in place, > > copyright holders still retain control over CSS-protected material > > even after the copyright has expired --- any use of the material which > > they have not authorized requires circumvention technology, both the > > distribution and the use of which are banned by the DMCA. So, it > > seems to me, the *effect* of the circumvention bans in the DMCA is to > > grant the copyright holders control of their content indefinitely, in > > contravention of the constitutional requirement that Congress grant > > "exclusive rights" of any kind to authors "for limited times" only. > > To be blunt, any -sane- court will tell you to come back in 50-90 years > when such a circumstance as above has actually come to pass. Unless you > can provide some evidence that film distributors are releasing > public-domain films (I am not aware of any, though someone has suggested > the Bicycle Thief) in encrypted form, then the above argument is a > complete red herring. Huh? The issue here is that the DMCA appears, in effect, to establish a new right of content authors to control the decryption of their CSS-encrypted content, which so far as I can tell, never expires. You need CSS to decrypt the stuff now; you'll still need it a thousand years from now; it'll still impose the same restrictions that it does today unless the authors choose otherwise. But Article I, Section 8 says that "The Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing *for* *limited* *Times* to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (emphasis added, of course). If this language has been superseded, I'd love to know how... like a lot of folks here, I'm not a lawyer, but I do like to keep abreast of these issues. However, if this language has not been superseded, then granting authors or publishers indefinite rights creates a potential consitutional issue which, I believe, we can argue *now* --- not just when the other rights they may have (such as copyright as previously understood) have expired. This has nothing to do with whether we can point to a public-domain CSS-encrypted DVD right now --- as you pointed out yourself, there aren't any. But I don't believe we need to point to one to demonstrate that Congress has overstepped its bounds, if we can show that some other way. (The obvious counter-argument here from their side, at least to me, would be to argue that Congress has *not* created a new right here to control decryption, since, once copyright per se has expired, it will be legal to use circumvention technology to get at the content. But since the DMCA bans the distribution of circumvention technology, anyone wishing to view the content would in effect have to do their own CSS-crack from scratch --- so while the public at large will have a "theoretical" right to see the content, I'd argue that it will in practice be available *only* to moderately competent computer programmers, barring change in the law). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:17:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA08888 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:17:24 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA08744 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:17:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 19105 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 22:21:35 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:21:35 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000221172135.J11768@linuxpower.org> References: <200002211820.KAA18406@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002211820.KAA18406@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:20:10AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:20:10AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:47:20AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > >> --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >> > >> > Wow. I didn't realize the Librarian had made a determination in this > >> > case. That was quick. I don't suppose you have a URL to back up > >> > that assertion? > >> > >> The LOC has not made any determination one way or the other. Until such > >> determination is made, I don't think the court should preemt the > >> decision. The law grants exclusive power to the LOC to determine what > >> is and what is not a non-infringing use. I'm saying the law is an > >> overly broad restraint of speech for this reason until the LOC speaks. > > > >If we know there's a decision coming, then I'd tend to agree. But as I > >understand it, the Librarian's decision only affects what is considered > >to be copyright infringement versus fair use. Seeing that this case > >isn't about copyright infringement, I don't see why the Librarian even > >gets involved. > > > > If we don't steer this case out of their little sandbox we're screwed. Incidentally for anyone reading this... I said we are screwed because you will effectively belong to a movie producers union in order to sell movies. > The sandbox is Section 12 of Title 17. They built the sandbox two years ago. For two years they've been playing in it, burying things, keeping people out of it. We need to get them out of the box and into the playground. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:18:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA08911 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:18:25 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA08902 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:18:24 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.16) with ESMTP id RAA15875 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:18:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA29702; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:18:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:18:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002212218.RAA29702@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steven Levin writes: > > >But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, > >whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. > > In the US, at least, since march of 1989, property is considered copyrighted > forever unless the owner specifically places it in the public domain. Could you say how this happened? I'd also be curious to know what the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998 was about, if copyright was already perpetual... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:19:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09267 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:19:35 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA09261 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:19:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 19111 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 22:23:51 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:23:51 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000221172351.K11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221094651.W11768@linuxpower.org> <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu>; from Steven Barker on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:21:18PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:21:18PM -0600, Steven Barker wrote: > > True, but if using that tech is not any kind of infringement, a case can be > made that it does not illegally circumvent access controls. If the > circumvention is legal, the distribution is legal. > > Or so I would hope. That's actually the whole reason why Section 12 (aka DMCA) is a bad law. You don't have to show infringement to be guilty. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:19:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09327 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:19:44 -0500 Received: from web503.mail.yahoo.com (web503.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.70]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA09323 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:19:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 13653 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Feb 2000 22:20:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20000221222016.13652.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web503.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:20:16 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:20:16 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > << snip [1201(f)(2)] >> > Okay, I'll give you this one. If the current issue were about these > guys creating DeCSS and then getting jumped on for it, this piece of > text would directly apply. The "independently created computer > program" would be the LiVid player. [...] Why do you say LiViD is? The interoperating programs are DeCSS and the CSS encryption program. The protected activity is exactly like one word processor reading another's files. FIle's are created by some program A and are read by program B (which might be the same as A or might be a watered down version). You look at B and create program C that can read program A's files. You have reverse engineered program B to create C which interoperates with A. For example program A&B could be MS Word and we make Star-Office to read .doc files. Or it could be CSS and we make DeCSS to read .vob files. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:44:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA16630 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:44:01 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA16627 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:44:00 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA27786 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:43:05 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA10805; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:07:26 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A different attack on Judge Kaplan's decision Date: 21 Feb 2000 14:06:15 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 31 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88scsn$ahk$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000216232948.18323.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000219222723.N11768@linuxpower.org> <200002201841.NAA22123@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20000221162634.E11768@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu May I ask you to be more precise about what type of intellectual properties violations you expect `clean rooming' will save you from? (It seems to me that the risk is, by being fast and loose with one's arguments, it is easy to be persuaded more by analogy and hopes of how the law should work than how it actually does work.) My understanding is that the `clean room' approach is usually taken, in our industry, to prevent claims of copyright infringement (i.e., so you can make a compelling case that your coders haven't been "tainted" by seeing copyrighted code). To give another example, `clean rooming' clearly doesn't help if you're worried about infringing on patents. If I understand correctly, you appear to be arguing that `clean rooming' should help prevent claims of trade secret violation. That's not at all clear to me. In particular, if the original disassembly is legally ruled to be misappropriation, then the re-implementation *can* apparently (by California trade secret law!) be considered tainted and thereby prohibited by law, whether or not you've used a `clean room' approach, if I am not mistaken. This seems to be a special feature of trade secret law. Consequently, I don't yet see why one could reasonably expect `clean rooms' to unilaterally prevent this type of trade secret misappropriation claims. I certainly don't understand the law, but if the above is right, it makes me suspicious that maybe your post might be a bit of an oversimplification. Am I mistaken or overlooking something? Or maybe you were talking about something entirely different? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:46:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA17448 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:46:03 -0500 Received: from dial249.roadrunner.com (dial249.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.249]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA17445 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:46:00 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial249.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01463 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:49:23 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:49:22 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Speech is irrelevant: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). Message-ID: <20000221154922.A1300@localhost> References: <200002200944.BAA32612@ns1.filetron.com> <20000220110503.A1037@localhost> <20000221161007.D11768@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000221161007.D11768@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:10:07PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:10:07PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:05:03AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: [ ... ] > > Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). (*) > > > > 1. "The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." > > 2. "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, > > contract the spectrum of available knowledge." > > 3. "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing > > addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren > > marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." > > > > Note that 2. may be pertinent to region codes. > > These statements, as well as the Constitution, do not apply outside of the > United States except possibly in a moral sense. If DVD region coding split > the U.S. into different regions rather than the world, this would be easier > to argue in court. As it stands, there are no restrictions being applied > region-code-wise purely within the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The issue is the restriction of foreign language flims in the U.S., as far as the First is concerned (I'm deliberately leaving restraint of trade out of this). 1201(b) restricts access to foreign language films and implicates Meyer v. Nebrasksa 262 U.S. 390 (1923), which established the right to study German in a private school. Griswold v. Connecticut is probably implicated too: 381 U.S. 479, 482 (1965) ("2" above). > At the same time, the above statements obviously have limits and I feel are > probably being taken out of context. The government has standing federal > laws mandating stiff criminal penalties for unauthorized computer access. > Reading the above statements the way you seem to be reading them, each of > the three above statements would make it seem that the government cannot > legally penalize you for breaking into a private computer and stealing > sensitive corporate information, because that would interfere with the right > to receive information and contract the spectrum of available knowledge. > This is obviously untrue. But we're not talking about breaking into someone's computer. We're talking about playback of published expressive material. The copyright owner has a right to first publication, but that is exercised the first time they sell or lease the movie (i.e. for most of this stuff, it happened on 35mmm film, way before DVDs existed.) After first publication, the right to read is operative. I've already tried to track down the federal tradesecret and espionage statutes, but mostly they are not on http://www.law.cornell.edu/ . The relevant sections are Title 18, Chapters 90 and 37. Ch. 37 only prohibits the gathering of military data in time of war (i.e. gathering is similar to "the right to receive"). I'll get to the library some day soon and read the rest. My suspicion is that Ch. 90 and 37 will only strengthen these arguments because they (I expect) will clearly circumscribe "forbidden reading", everything outside that delineated boundary is allowed. 1201(a) and (b) do the opposite. They give the impression of trying to forbid all that is not explicitly allowed. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:50:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19078 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:50:17 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA19075 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:50:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 19125 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 22:54:32 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:54:32 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000221175432.L11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000221184233.16476.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000221184233.16476.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:42:32AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:42:32AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > There is a legal "access control" mechanism - CSS - attached to DVD > > content. > > False, CSS is not "attached" to DVD content. It is a separate product. > It would be great if DVD's could descramble themselves. "Attached" was my word and not intended as a legal term. The fact remains that CSS is the access control mechanism that was chosen here. That access control mechanism is currently legal and Section 12 applies. > > > Non-circumventing access would, by definition, be working > > within CSS to gain access to underlying content. > > This is a circular arguement. "By definition", as you say, the words > "non-circumventing" mean, following DMCA 1201(a)(3)(A), that somewhere > an access grant is made that discriminates allowed vs. non-allowed > access. Nowhere do you site the text of this grant, so your analysis of > the implications of it have no supporting evidence. First of all, it's not the DMCA. It's Section 12 of Title 17. This frustrates me to no end that people don't understand the difference between a presigned bill and a standing law. If you're going to cite, cite correctly. Title 17, Section 1201(a)(3)(A): "(A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner" The word "allowed" never enters it. It's about "authority", and if you wish to argue that by not explicitly stating on the outside of a DVD that playing a DVD on a non-CSS player is not an authorized use, that they're a priori giving authorization, then fine. But I think you're very wrong. The problem here is that you assume that "authority" begins and ends with "Authorized for home use only"; if that were the case, most of copyright law would be unnecessary. I think you're taking a very simplistic and naive approach to a complicated topic. Many DVD cases - for example, "The Terminator" distrbuted by Image Entertainment, which I have here in front of me - say nowhere on the outside of the case that you can't make copies for friends. Does this then make it legal to do so? You state that the copyright restrictions are only what appear after the copyright notice. This is what this particular DVD says, immediately after the original Cinema 84 content copyright notice: "WARNING: The program contained in this DVD is authorized for home use only. All other rights are retained by the copyright proprietor. The FBI investigates allegations of copyright infringement, and federal law provides severe criminal and civil penalties for those found to be in violation." Kinda vague, eh? "All other rights" leaves a lot of wiggle room. I'm willing to bet that "authority" isn't limited to what's printed on the package. If you have a legal citation - complete with a URL - that outlines exactly what the current definition of "authority" is, I'd love to see it. If you have a legal citation that says that legally, copyright authorizations begin and end with printed copyright notices, please cite and if I can verify it, I'll happily admit being wrong and get started on copying my Terminator DVD for friends and family immediately. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 17:53:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20125 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:53:16 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA20122 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:53:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 19131 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 22:57:19 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:57:19 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com>; from Jim Bauer on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:14:48PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:14:48PM -0500, Jim Bauer wrote: > > > In article <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> > greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > > > >Okay, now 1201(f)(2): > > > >"(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 identification 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." > > > >Okay, I'll give you this one. If the current issue were about these > >guys creating DeCSS and then getting jumped on for it, this piece of > >text would directly apply. The "independently created computer > >program" would be the LiVid player. But there are weaknesses. > > > >DeCSS doesn't enable the interoperation of LiVid with other Linux > >software, only the interoperation of LiVid with DVD media. As a > >standalone MPEG 2 player, LiVid runs just fine on Linux; there are > >no system interoperability issues here. CSS does not prevent LiVid > >from working with other Linux applications - and DeCSS doesn't do > >anything to enable it. > > But CSS does prevent LiViD from being interoperable with DVD media > encrypted with CSS. LiViD (without DeCSS) is not inteoperatable > with "approved" software or "approved" dedicated DVD players. Unfortunately, as has been said over and over again, DVD films ain't programs. Neither is CSS. Reading the above law literally, this exemption only applies to making programs interoperative with other programs, not with particular types of media. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 18:03:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA22836 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:03:09 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA22832 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:03:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 19190 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 23:07:09 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:07:09 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Message-ID: <20000221180709.N11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000220174929.B670@localhost> <000001bf7c32$0f99a600$f37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:11:31PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yeah, yeah, I'm replying to myself. I've just got some suggestions for FAQ questions: - Isn't DeCSS covered under fair use? (Infringement vs. Circumvention) - Is it illegal to possess a copy of DeCSS? (No.) - Why shouldn't I refer to this set of laws as the DMCA? (Because it's law now.) - Why should I care? I'm not a Linux user/DVD owner! - Is it illegal to discuss DeCSS/CSS decryption? - Is trafficking in source code illegal? What are the issues? - But is CSS an "effective" AC device, even at 40 bit? (Legally, yes.) - Is my new CopyLeft T-Shirt legal? - Where can I look up the law as it stands? (http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 18:08:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24232 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:08:32 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA24229 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:08:28 -0500 Received: (qmail 19200 invoked by uid 502); 21 Feb 2000 23:12:44 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:12:44 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000221181244.O11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000221222016.13652.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000221222016.13652.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:20:16PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:20:16PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > << snip [1201(f)(2)] >> > > Okay, I'll give you this one. If the current issue were about these > > guys creating DeCSS and then getting jumped on for it, this piece of > > text would directly apply. The "independently created computer > > program" would be the LiVid player. [...] > > Why do you say LiViD is? The interoperating programs are DeCSS and the > CSS encryption program. The protected activity is exactly like one word > processor reading another's files. FIle's are created by some program A > and are read by program B (which might be the same as A or might be a > watered down version). You look at B and create program C that can read > program A's files. You have reverse engineered program B to create C > which interoperates with A. Bryan, CSS isn't a program. It's an encryption method. There's a difference, and any lawyer more than two years out of law school would point it out in court. Calling CSS a program is like calling symmetric cyphers programs. They ain't. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 18:20:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA26865 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:20:39 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA26862 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:20:37 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA00273 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:21:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:20:14 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Unfortunately, as has been said over and over again, DVD films ain't > programs. Neither is CSS. Reading the above law literally, this exemption > only applies to making programs interoperative with other programs, not > with particular types of media. > Excuse me. I'm not so sure it's been established that DVD films aren't programs. A few years ago, I did a white paper for a Canadian law firm to establish, for taxation purposes, that DVD films ARE programs - actually, the term was software as opposed to systems software. Here is an excerpt: DVD Video is the first consumer video delivery medium in which the term “software” really applies. In multimedia development for compact disc applications on computers, a third term, content, is commonly used to define digitized data on a disc - usually audio or video - which is not strictly applications software, but is certainly not to be considered systems software. However, since a DVD Video player is not strictly a computer, but a dedicated device like a VCR or CD audio player, and the “contents” of a DVD Video disc are much more complex than the digitized audio data on a CD audio disc, or video information on VHS cassettes, the definition of DVD Video discs as software, but not systems software or content, requires an explanation. The software on a DVD Video disc - or the stamper used to make that disc - is considered applications software, for three reasons. First of all, applications software does not control the hardware - it performs a certain kind of activity, which in the case of DVD Video, is to display a “program” of a feature film. Within the software contained on the DVD Video disc are navigational commands, such as branching, linking, and jumping. There are also menus that will accept user input for choices in playback, language, subtitle, rating, or camera angle. All of these commands and choices, however, are unique to the one particular title in which they appear - these commands are as much an integral part of the DVD Video application in which they appear as the actual “content” or digitized video and audio. Unlike systems software, the commands or systems parameters for one DVD Video disc could not be used with another. They do not control the hardware, but the program itself. The values and systems parameters are “variables” that the DVD Video player uses in conjunction with its “systems software” to control the hardware, very similar to, for example, filenames created within an application that a computer operating system can copy from one location to another using operating system commands. Second, DVD Video discs and the stampers used to form them must be considered applications software, not “content”, because of the very nature of DVD title development and manufacturing. As a glance at the development process shows, the original input for DVD Video title development (usually a D1 master tape), must be disassembled into its component audio and video parts, each component separately digitized and encoded, subpictures generated, menus and navigational controls programmed, and finally, all of these disparate elements are combined into one disc image comprised of several files. The process of premastering the disc image mixes the elements still further; no longer are the parts or files in the disc image identifiable as such. They have been interleaved, made redundant, scrambled, modulated, and encrypted. At this point, it would be impossible, due to the development process and premastering, to determine which parts are content and which are application - the application was developed based on the content (for example, break points, subpictures, menus, camera angles) and that customized application, therefore, cannot be used with any other content. The whole of the data on the disc is now application software. Finally, if a DVD Video disc were to be played on a computer with a DVD ROM drive, the application software on the disc would not control the hardware. The application would be displayed and navigated using a DVD Video player emulation program on the computer, which would mimic the capabilities of a DVD Video player in reading the values and parameters from the disc. The emulation program itself would control the computer’s hardware (DVD ROM drive, MPEG 2 decoder, display, and CPU), and the DVD Video program would perform exactly as it would on a dedicated, stand alone DVD Video player. In the near future, DVD Video emulation will be part of the computer’s operating system. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 18:30:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA29380 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:30:56 -0500 Received: from dial73.roadrunner.com (dial73.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA29377 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:30:53 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial73.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01760 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:34:17 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:34:16 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: Copyright Term: Re: Outline for DMCA case brief posted Message-ID: <20000221163416.A1496@localhost> References: <200002212218.RAA29702@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002212218.RAA29702@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from Robert S. Thau on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:18:57PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:18:57PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Steven Levin writes: > > > > >But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, > > >whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. > > > > In the US, at least, since march of 1989, property is considered copyrighted > > forever unless the owner specifically places it in the public domain. > > Could you say how this happened? I'd also be curious to know what the > Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998 was about, if copyright was > already perpetual... It hasn't happened. You can read all about Sonny Bono in the Eldred v. Reno section of Open Law. This thread is off-topic. It belongs in the Eldred v. Reno section of open law. Please, no more posts on dvd-discuss. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 18:39:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA31435 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:39:57 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA31432 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:39:56 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 32DFB76F4; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:40:57 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:51:38 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221172351.K11768@linuxpower.org> In-Reply-To: <20000221172351.K11768@linuxpower.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022117405700.09344@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > That's actually the whole reason why Section 12 (aka DMCA) is a bad law. You > don't have to show infringement to be guilty. Do you have to show that the distributed technology illegally circumvents the protection? (the illegal part is the most important part of that) We might be able to get the judge to accept that circumveting the access control is neccessary for fair use. We would just need to get him to see that banning distribution of a then legal device doesn't fit under the copyright code. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 18:46:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00421 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:46:42 -0500 Received: from mail.firstlook.com ([209.0.190.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00418 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:46:40 -0500 Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:45:15 -0800 Message-ID: From: Steven Levin To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:45:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >> In the US, at least, since march of 1989, property is considered copyrighted >> forever unless the owner specifically places it in the public domain. >Well, the 70 years (in some cases 95) granted under the Sonny Bono >Protection Act is admittedly long, but it's not 'forever'. Actually, I was referring to the Berne Act, which for the US took effect in March of 1989. I'm not aware that it has any time limits. Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 18:53:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA01705 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:53:13 -0500 Received: from dial186.roadrunner.com (dial186.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.186]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01675 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:53:10 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial186.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01981 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:56:34 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:56:33 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Message-ID: <20000221165633.B1496@localhost> References: <20000220174929.B670@localhost> <000001bf7c32$0f99a600$f37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> <20000221180709.N11768@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000221180709.N11768@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:07:09PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:07:09PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > - Why shouldn't I refer to this set of laws as the DMCA? (Because it's law now.) The HTML-ized versions omit the law's name, but the PDF files of the enrolled act state on the title page: SECTION 1. SHORTTITLE This Act may be cited as the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act". You can see this in plain text at: I agree with you that calling it the DMCA may tickle people's fancy for acronyms, but it doesn't make for ease of tracking citations. Not specific enough. How about: - Why shouldn't I refer to this set of laws as the DMCA? Because it is non-specific, and on dvd-discuss we are trying to make specific, cited, factual arguments. "DMCA" is fine in non-specific conversation, but hinders precision in formulating legal arguments. For example, if you wanted to talk about the "anti-circumvention" provision of the law, you should cite it as 1201(a), and possibly be more specific than that, depending on the nature of the argument. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 18:53:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA01866 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:53:25 -0500 Received: from mail1.bellatlantic.net (mail1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.32.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01863 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:53:24 -0500 Received: from banquo (adsl-151-202-34-10.bellatlantic.net [151.202.34.10]) by mail1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA17162 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:53:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000221180803.00d6c770@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:56:41 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... In-Reply-To: <20000221180709.N11768@linuxpower.org> References: <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> <20000220174929.B670@localhost> <000001bf7c32$0f99a600$f37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'll gladly post the FAQ on the openlaw site. It seems like a good idea -- even gathering the questions will be useful framing of arguments. The tricky part will be deciding when an issue is sufficiently resolved to mark it "answered." Even this document will probably continue to evolve after basic answers are set out. Are there any useful tools for the FAQ-writing process? At 06:07 PM 2/21/00 -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >- Isn't DeCSS covered under fair use? (Infringement vs. Circumvention) ...but the need to preserve fair use might be part of a case for limiting the scope of anticircumvention provisions. >- Why shouldn't I refer to this set of laws as the DMCA? (Because it's law >now.) Not quite. Is it the DMCA or 17 U.S.C. s. 1201? The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304, was enacted in October, 1998, and codified in Title 17 of the U.S.Code. (It also contains such gems as the `Vessel Hull Design Protection Act') The MPAA is suing under section 1201. You can still refer to the section as part of the DMCA, but should get subsection numbering from the U.S. Code. Probably the whole of section 1201 should be included in the FAQ! Good start. --Wendy >- Why should I care? I'm not a Linux user/DVD owner! >- Is it illegal to discuss DeCSS/CSS decryption? >- Is trafficking in source code illegal? What are the issues? >- But is CSS an "effective" AC device, even at 40 bit? (Legally, yes.) >- Is my new CopyLeft T-Shirt legal? >- Where can I look up the law as it stands? (http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm) > > > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris > --- Wendy Seltzer Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 20:04:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA20607 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:04:54 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA20604 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:04:53 -0500 Received: (qmail 13069 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Feb 2000 01:05:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20000222010520.13068.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:05:20 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:05:20 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- sam th wrote: > 1) But isn't DeCSS covered under the reverse engineering exceptionto > the DMCA? > > No. Sadly, the reverse engineering exception, 1201(f), applies only > the defeating access controls on software, not access controls > implemented in software. If we were trying to get at encrypted source > code on DVD's, then it would apply, but we are trying to access movies > instead. To quote from the Senate Committee Report on the DMCA > > "Section 1201(f) applies to computer programs as such, regardless of > their medium of fixation, and not to works generally, such as music or > audiovisual works, which may be fixed or distributed in digital form. > ... > The committe emphasizes that nothing in in those subsections can be > read to authorize the circumvention of any technological protection > measure that controls access to any work other than a computer > program." I had wondered where Kaplan pulled the "computer programs only" stuff from. Now I know. Can you post the URL for this document? By the way, even in light of this fairly damning quote, I certainly do not think this is a settled issue. You might rephrase the question to "How did the Judge reason against 1201(f)". I think it best to state questions and answers in an FAQ as position-neutral. As a matter of rebuttal, this quote is NOT among those that were passed into law. The best record of legislative history is the plain text of the bill itself. The quote appears to accurately reflect paragraph 1201(f)(1) only, but I cannot see any way to reconcile it with the language of 1201(f)(2), unless you include data files under the umbrella of computer programs, as a non-technical person might. Without this interpretation, 1201(f)(2) seems to do precisely the oposite of what is claimed. Furthermore, the content scrambling system IS a computer program that reads computer program files which happen to contain movies, I still argue that even under the "computer programs only" mis-interpretation, DeCSS still qualifies. If you include program data files under the umbrella of computer programs, the quote above makes much more sense vis-a-vis the text of the law. It still has content: a hardware cable descrambler device could not be reverese engineered. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 20:29:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA28676 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:29:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.118.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA28672 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:29:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA00832 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:30:49 -0600 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:30:49 -0600 (CST) From: sam th X-Sender: sam@localhost.localdomain To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... In-Reply-To: <20000222010520.13068.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- sam th wrote: > > > 1) But isn't DeCSS covered under the reverse engineering exceptionto > > the DMCA? > > > > No. Sadly, the reverse engineering exception, 1201(f), applies only > > the defeating access controls on software, not access controls > > implemented in software. If we were trying to get at encrypted > source > > code on DVD's, then it would apply, but we are trying to access > movies > > instead. To quote from the Senate Committee Report on the DMCA > > > > "Section 1201(f) applies to computer programs as such, regardless of > > their medium of fixation, and not to works generally, such as music > or > > audiovisual works, which may be fixed or distributed in digital form. > > ... > > The committe emphasizes that nothing in in those subsections can be > > read to authorize the circumvention of any technological protection > > measure that controls access to any work other than a computer > > program." > > I had wondered where Kaplan pulled the "computer programs only" stuff > from. Now I know. Can you post the URL for this document? I have been unable to find this document online, and the quote comes from my digging around in the Law Library. However, the reference is S.REP.NO. 105-190 (1998) page 43. > > By the way, even in light of this fairly damning quote, I certainly do > not think this is a settled issue. You might rephrase the question to > "How did the Judge reason against 1201(f)". I think it best to state > questions and answers in an FAQ as position-neutral. > I think the way you phrase it is assuming that the judge is reasoning in a way different than the Congress did. However, I think the legislative history makes clear that the judge is reasoning in _exactly_ the same manner. > As a matter of rebuttal, this quote is NOT among those that were passed > into law. The best record of legislative history is the plain text of > the bill itself. However, the bill is ambigous as to what precisely a computer program is. Thus, we look to the legisative history, which is very clear. The quote appears to accurately reflect paragraph > 1201(f)(1) only, but I cannot see any way to reconcile it with the > language of 1201(f)(2), unless you include data files under the > umbrella of computer programs, as a non-technical person might. Without > this interpretation, 1201(f)(2) seems to do precisely the oposite of > what is claimed. However, Congress intended for data not to be included under this exception. > > Furthermore, the content scrambling system IS a computer program that > reads computer program files which happen to contain movies, I still > argue that even under the "computer programs only" mis-interpretation, This is not a misinterpretation. What part of the quote I cited is unclear? > DeCSS still qualifies. If you include program data files under the > umbrella of computer programs, the quote above makes much more sense > vis-a-vis the text of the law. It still has content: a hardware cable > descrambler device could not be reverese engineered. > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > Section 1201(f) does not apply to audio-visual works. I realize that this is a bad thing, and that Congress should have written the law differently, but they didn't. We have to deal with that fact, not try to deny it. sam th sytobinh@uchicago.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 21:32:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA15385 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:32:06 -0500 Received: from dial71.roadrunner.com (dial71.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA15382 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:32:04 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial71.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA00947 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:35:22 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:35:21 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000221193521.A593@localhost> References: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu>; from Wendy Seltzer on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:58:37PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 03:09 PM 2/21/00 -0500, rst@ai.mit.edu wrote: >But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, >whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. >Which suggests another angle of attack: with the DMCA in place, >copyright holders still retain control over CSS-protected material >even after the copyright has expired --- any use of the material which >they have not authorized requires circumvention technology, both the >distribution and the use of which are banned by the DMCA. So, it >seems to me, the *effect* of the circumvention bans in the DMCA is to >grant the copyright holders control of their content indefinitely, in >contravention of the constitutional requirement that Congress grant >"exclusive rights" of any kind to authors "for limited times" only. On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:58:37PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > I think this is a point worth pushing more on, either for factual examples > or for other indications of overbreadth. We argue that courts must find a > way to enforce non-copyright-infringing access -- by reading into the DMCA > additional defenses or exceptions -- if they want to save any of the Act > from constitutional problems. Modern commentary will certainly be covered by copyright, but the movies themselves may or may not be, depending on whether they have been re-cut. Would a copyright specialist like to step in at this point and comment on how much editing of the motion picture proper is needed to get a new copyright? (a) Chaplin on DVD. Guess what? Region 1 encoded. Price fixing may just be their undoing. (b) Nosferatu on DVD. Guess what? Region 1 encoded. (c) Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel to find these DVDs. Need to establish that picture frames are not covered by copyright at thie point. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 21:46:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA18637 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:46:35 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA18634 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:46:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 14805 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2000 02:42:26 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2000 02:42:26 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA26234; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:47:07 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:47:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200002220247.SAA26234@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Are we going in circles? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:38:27AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> >On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 07:20:15PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> >I've been at work all weekend, but I'm back now. :) >> > >> >If I'm reading the above correctly, we're talking about two things: arguing the point >> >that Section 12 presumes guilt from the possibility of guilt (i.e., guilty until proven >> >innocent), and doing a court demonstration to show the act of decryption in the process >> >of playing back legally-obtained media. Am I correct? >> >> Yes and no. The demo was to state a principle. Our demo would be to show DeCSS is irrelevant. > >Lemme get this straight. Demoing DeCSS would demonstrate that DeCSS is irrelevant in >getting around access control. In Windows it is. >What's wrong with this picture? Selective listening? You cut out the best parts... >We'd only prove that >DeCSS is an access control circumvention device and that the MPAA has a case. That I understand... So you're saying that by fighting this case we're fscked and by not fighting we're fscked. Care tro comment on this stalemate? I sure as hell have no idea what else to try. What are we going to do, make like the Greeks and hope the Gods start to feel sorry for us? I mean seriously should we evade the main topic when this goes before Kaplan, long enough to detour the case? I'm tryin' man... Though just to clear up the above... dvd-discuss2eon.law.harvard.edu I'll match your movie quotes and raise you a comment: To demonstrate that DeCSS is irrelevant to Windows platforms. That's the point. :) Why the double standard... Why Windows do users get to see and we can't? > >> That's scary. That brings up another point. If we win, it gets appealed guaranteed. The MPAA is not going to give up that easily, which is why I fear we've barely begun to fight. >> >> >Doing any sort of court demonstration would be ridiculous in this venue, because all >> >we can do then is prove that DeCSS is circumvention technology. >> >> We can also prove it's irrelevant. > >Irrelevant to what??? To our case?? Come on. Think, McFly, think; do you know what would >happen if I handed in my homework in your handwriting? I'd be kicked out of school! :) > Okay Rob, you convinced me to play the devil, now I have a challenge for you. I honestly believe we're fscked if we battle in their sandbox. I keep saying we need to open the battlefield, I don't know how. Got any ideas? >Rob Warren, who watched BTTF too many times as a kid Rares, who wishes he had more time for funky stuff from the Coen Brothers (Fargo, Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, The Big Lebowski) >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 21:49:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA19131 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:49:22 -0500 Received: from dial71.roadrunner.com (dial71.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA19126 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:49:19 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial71.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01130 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:52:42 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:52:41 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000221195241.B593@localhost> References: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> <20000221193521.A593@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000221193521.A593@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 07:35:21PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 07:35:21PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > (a) Chaplin on DVD. Guess what? Region 1 encoded. Price fixing may just > be their undoing. > This Chaplin DVD give a theatrical release date of 1997. New copyright as a derivative work I assume? > (b) Nosferatu on DVD. Guess what? Region 1 encoded. > Nosferatu gives a theatrical release date of 1922. The DVD includes modern commentary. Copyright status of the picture frames? (c) Dr. Caligari gives a theatrical release date of 1919. The DVD includes modern commentary. Copyright status of the picture frames? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 21:50:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA19342 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:50:04 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA19339 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:50:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 18354 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Feb 2000 02:50:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000222025034.18353.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:50:34 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:50:34 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > "Attached" was my word and not intended as a legal term. The fact > remains that CSS is the access control mechanism that was chosen > here. That access control mechanism is currently legal and Section 12 > applies. You seem to be pretty good at pointing out things that are not in dispute :-] I still content that DeCSS gives access-with-authority past the access control system. > > > Non-circumventing access would, by definition, be working > > > within CSS to gain access to underlying content. > > > > This is a circular arguement. "By definition", as you say, the words > > "non-circumventing" mean, following DMCA 1201(a)(3)(A), that > > somewhere an access grant is made that discriminates allowed vs. > > non-allowed access. Nowhere do you site the text of this grant, so > > your analysis of the implications of it have no supporting evidence. > First of all, it's not the DMCA. It's Section 12 of Title 17. This > frustrates me to no end that people don't understand the difference > between a presigned bill and a standing law. If you're going to cite, > cite correctly. It's both. I'm sorry you're frustrated. Perhaps some good deep breathing would ease your burden. :-] If you really are bothered, I suggest writing a little perl script to globally replace all instances of 'DMCA 1201' with 'Title 17, Section 1201' throughout your email. > Title 17, Section 1201(a)(3)(A): > > "(A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright > owner" > > The word "allowed" never enters it. It's about "authority", and if > you wish to argue that by not explicitly stating on the outside of a > DVD that playing a DVD on a non-CSS player is not an authorized use, > that they're a priori giving authorization, then fine. > But I think you're very wrong. The problem here is that you assume > that "authority" begins and ends with "Authorized for home use only"; > if that were the case, most of copyright law would be unnecessary. I > think you're taking a very simplistic and naive approach to a > complicated topic. It's a simple approach, but not a simplistic one. I would summarize it as "Say exactly what you mean when writing that legal stuff on your product, and don't cry 'boo-hoo' with expensive lawyers if somebody does something you didn't think about that doesn't violate it." > Many DVD cases - for example, "The Terminator" distrbuted by Image > Entertainment, which I have here in front of me - say nowhere on the > outside of the case that you can't make copies for friends. Does > this then make it legal to do so? They do say it in two ways. The first way is when they put the copyright symbol and thereby alert the customer to the company's exclusive rights under copyright law (statutory and precedent), which, as is well known, do not, by default, allow sale-depriving copying as you describe. Second, in the language following the copyright, as you note below, it says "All other rights are retained...", which makes it explicit that there is no grant for what you describe, though a copyright owner could insert language here to waive this right, for example, as is done in the GPL licence. > "WARNING: The program contained in this DVD is authorized for home use > only. All other rights are retained by the copyright proprietor. The > FBI investigates allegations of copyright infringement, and federal > law provides severe criminal and civil penalties for those found to be > in violation." > Kinda vague, eh? "All other rights" leaves a lot of wiggle room. Perhaps, but not enough wiggle room to try to reclaim the 'home use' granted by the previous sentence. I'm sure there are cases that have passed judgement over the extent to which copyright notices bind the parties. I doubt they are Supreme Court cases. I will try to find something. I doubt that any precedent speaks directly to whether 'home viewing' or 'home use' includes decryption in the post DMCA era. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 22:09:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA23692 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:09:13 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA23688 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:09:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 15848 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2000 03:05:01 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2000 03:05:01 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAB27836; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:09:42 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:09:42 -0800 Message-Id: <200002220309.TAB27836@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Speech is irrelevant: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Look it isn't that hard. It is illegal to copy VHS tapes in New York but it is legal to sell them. Kind of like linking. Now there's a concept the film industry is built on the viewing of film as opposed to it's distribution. In a similar way you have the RTR illegally published documents. You are not allowed to steal them though. I think that is a brilliant arrangement in light of people's rights in an imperfect world. Yes, tapes will be stolen. Yes, people will know they're buying them. However some of the people who set up these laws know a snowball/avalanche when they see one. If there ever was a slippery issue the issue of rights concerning reading, distribution, probing, of whatever content legally or illegally obtained is it. That's what we get when we live in the real world. More below... greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:05:03AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: >> Here is a reponse to one of the points. >> >> On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:44:59AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> > Speech is irrelevant (not easy for them to get away with but they might try). >> >> Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). (*) >> >> 1. "The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." >> 2. "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, >> contract the spectrum of available knowledge." >> 3. "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing >> addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren >> marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." >> >> Note that 2. may be pertinent to region codes. > >These statements, as well as the Constitution, do not apply outside of the >United States except possibly in a moral sense. Exactly. We're not even in the ballpark of the 1st Amendment here. If DVD region coding split >the U.S. into different regions rather than the world, this would be easier >to argue in court. As it stands, there are no restrictions being applied >region-code-wise purely within the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. > >At the same time, the above statements obviously have limits and I feel are >probably being taken out of context. The government has standing federal >laws mandating stiff criminal penalties for unauthorized computer access. >Reading the above statements the way you seem to be reading them, each of >the three above statements would make it seem that the government cannot >legally penalize you for breaking into a private computer and stealing >sensitive corporate information, because that would interfere with the right >to receive information and contract the spectrum of available knowledge. >This is obviously untrue. Right so let's drop the free speech line of reasoning. I was born in a commie state I am freaked out by the idea of blocking free speech, but now it's time to go on the offensive. What is their case? >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 22:09:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA23869 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:09:40 -0500 Received: from dial71.roadrunner.com (dial71.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA23866 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:09:37 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial71.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA01276 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:12:57 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:12:56 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Overbreadth, 1201(k)? Message-ID: <20000221201256.C593@localhost> References: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu>; from Wendy Seltzer on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:58:37PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I know this case is nominally about DVDs, but it might be helpful to look at 1201(k)(1) "Certain analog devcies." Basically that section says mandatory _copy_ control (i.e. damaged data copies) must be instituted in new "consumer" analog tape devices. (i) What's copy control doing in an "access" control section of Title 17? Can we make a point out of this? (ii) 1201(k)(1) makes no provision for allowing the reproduction of public domain material. (a) "Chaplin's Essanay Comedies vol. 01 (1915) NTSC/VHS, a regulated format. (b) "Chaplin's Essanay Comedies vol. 04 (1915) NTSC/VHS, a regulated format. (iii) The MPAA will argue that one should buy the exempt, "professional" equipment to make the copies (i.e. 1201(k)(3)(B)). Will this weasle really hold up in court? Isn't this conditioning protected speech? (iv) Perhaps we can connect this to 1201(b)'s prohibition on trafficking in "access" circumvention? Paul ------- o (k) Certain Analog Devices and Certain Technological Measures. - + (1) Certain analog devices. - o (A) Effective 18 months after the date of the enactment of this chapter, no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any - * (i) VHS format analog video cassette recorder unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology; * (ii) 8mm format analog video cassette camcorder unless such camcorder conforms to the automatic gain control technology; * (iii) Beta format analog video cassette recorder, unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology, except that this requirement shall not apply until there are 1,000 Beta format analog video cassette recorders sold in the United States in any one calendar year after the date of the enactment of this chapter; [ ... ] + (3) Inapplicability. - This subsection shall not - o (A) require any analog video cassette camcorder to conform to the automatic gain control copy control technology with respect to any video signal received through a camera lens; o (B) apply to the manufacture, importation, offer for sale, provision of, or other trafficking in, any professional analog video cassette recorder; or From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 22:26:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA28541 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:26:14 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA28534 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:26:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 19707 invoked by uid 502); 22 Feb 2000 03:29:34 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:29:34 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Message-ID: <20000221222934.A19640@linuxpower.org> References: <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> <20000220174929.B670@localhost> <000001bf7c32$0f99a600$f37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> <20000221180709.N11768@linuxpower.org> <4.1.20000221180803.00d6c770@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000221180803.00d6c770@law.harvard.edu>; from Wendy Seltzer on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:56:41PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:56:41PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > I'll gladly post the FAQ on the openlaw site. It seems like a good idea -- > even gathering the questions will be useful framing of arguments. The > tricky part will be deciding when an issue is sufficiently resolved to mark > it "answered." Even this document will probably continue to evolve after > basic answers are set out. I was thinking about this. I think the best thing would probably to lead off with a disclaimer (we are not lawyers, this is still being debated, etc etc) and follow that up with a list of contributors. That way, it is expressing the opinions of the contributors and is not necessarily the opinion of this group as a whole. > > Are there any useful tools for the FAQ-writing process? I'm using vi. :) As useful as anything else. > > At 06:07 PM 2/21/00 -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >- Isn't DeCSS covered under fair use? (Infringement vs. Circumvention) > ...but the need to preserve fair use might be part of a case for limiting > the scope of anticircumvention provisions. True, but the question is a good leadoff into the issue. A lot of people are using the "fair use" argument to avoid actually having to get involved. It's an excuse for inaction, like the RE argument.. "it's obvious, the court will throw it out, so why should I do anything?" I think it'll be useful to document why it ain't that cut and dry. > >- Why shouldn't I refer to this set of laws as the DMCA? (Because it's law > >now.) > Not quite. > Is it the DMCA or 17 U.S.C. s. 1201? The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, > Public Law 105-304, was enacted in October, 1998, and codified in Title 17 > of the U.S.Code. (It also contains such gems as the `Vessel Hull Design > Protection Act') The MPAA is suing under section 1201. You can still refer > to the section as part of the DMCA, but should get subsection numbering > from the U.S. Code. The reason I keep harping on this is because the EFF lawyers showed up in New York with different copies of the DMCA rather than all the same copy of Title 17. When Kaplan called them on it, they turned into the Three Stooges. That's why I think it's more useful to refer to this as Title 17, Section 12 rather than the DMCA.. there are too many people reading the text of the Act as it was handed to Clinton rather than taking it as part of the entire Copyright Act. It eliminates confusion. > > Probably the whole of section 1201 should be included in the FAQ! Agreed. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 22:30:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA29326 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:30:19 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA29323 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:30:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 19715 invoked by uid 502); 22 Feb 2000 03:34:09 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:34:09 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Message-ID: <20000221223409.B19640@linuxpower.org> References: <20000220174929.B670@localhost> <000001bf7c32$0f99a600$f37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> <20000221180709.N11768@linuxpower.org> <20000221165633.B1496@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000221165633.B1496@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:56:33PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:56:33PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > How about: > > - Why shouldn't I refer to this set of laws as the DMCA? > > Because it is non-specific, and on dvd-discuss we are trying to > make specific, cited, factual arguments. "DMCA" is fine in non-specific > conversation, but hinders precision in formulating legal arguments. > > For example, if you wanted to talk about the "anti-circumvention" > provision of the law, you should cite it as 1201(a), and possibly > be more specific than that, depending on the nature of the argument. Exactly. Throwing around the term "DMCA" could mean any number of things. It also doesn't make the distinction between the pre-enacted bill and the currently-standing law. Most of the documents I've seen so far that say "DMCA" are in fact the text of the Act as it was handed to Clinton; this was presumably what the EFF lawyers walked into New York carrying. Kaplan start citing Title 17 and the EFF'ers couldn't find the references in their texts of the DMCA. They should have had copies of 17 with them from the U.S. Code. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 22:39:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA31446 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:39:49 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA31440 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:39:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 17316 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2000 03:35:40 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2000 03:35:40 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA29743; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:40:21 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:40:21 -0800 Message-Id: <200002220340.TAA29743@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 5Gs say they planned it all along like this and in the process actually managed to screw it up. This sounds promising. They wanted to use the term software for the circumvention case, yet by doing this they opened us an opportunity. This is too bizarre. Rares (who now believes that the crazies are interleaved w/ the normals and they make up a complex thing called society. Fun :/) Dana Parker wrote: >greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >> Unfortunately, as has been said over and over again, DVD films ain't >> programs. Neither is CSS. Reading the above law literally, this exemption >> only applies to making programs interoperative with other programs, not >> with particular types of media. >> > >Excuse me. I'm not so sure it's been established that DVD films aren't >programs. A few years ago, I did a white paper for a Canadian law firm to >establish, for taxation purposes, that DVD films ARE programs - actually, the >term was software as opposed to systems software. ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 22:41:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA31823 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:41:46 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA31648 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:40:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 19724 invoked by uid 502); 22 Feb 2000 03:44:16 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:44:16 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000221224416.C19640@linuxpower.org> References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221172351.K11768@linuxpower.org> <00022117405700.09344@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <00022117405700.09344@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu>; from Steven Barker on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:51:38PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:51:38PM -0600, Steven Barker wrote: > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > That's actually the whole reason why Section 12 (aka DMCA) is a bad law. You > > don't have to show infringement to be guilty. > > Do you have to show that the distributed technology illegally circumvents the > protection? (the illegal part is the most important part of that) We might be > able to get the judge to accept that circumveting the access control is > neccessary for fair use. We would just need to get him to see that banning > distribution of a then legal device doesn't fit under the copyright code. So far I see two possible points of attack: 1. In certain cases - such as DeCSS - access circumvention technology is necessary to exercise fair use rights over material. Since in these cases access circumvention tech actually has a legal application, it cannot be prohibited by law. Or something to that effect. 2. There is a potential loophole in the RE clause of 1201, and it has to do with "authority". The RE clause defines circumvention as getting to the content, past the access control, without the "authority" of the copyright owner. We need to find out exactly what "authority" means in a legal sense. If we can show that the copyright owner's "authority" doesn't extend to preventing fair use, then we may be able to show that DeCSS is not circumvention tech at all as defined by 1201. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 22:44:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA32493 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:44:56 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA32487 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:44:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 19730 invoked by uid 502); 22 Feb 2000 03:48:52 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:48:51 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000221224851.D19640@linuxpower.org> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com>; from Dana Parker on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:20:14PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:20:14PM -0700, Dana Parker wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > Unfortunately, as has been said over and over again, DVD films ain't > > programs. Neither is CSS. Reading the above law literally, this exemption > > only applies to making programs interoperative with other programs, not > > with particular types of media. > > > > Excuse me. I'm not so sure it's been established that DVD films aren't > programs. A few years ago, I did a white paper for a Canadian law firm to > establish, for taxation purposes, that DVD films ARE programs - actually, the > term was software as opposed to systems software. Here is an excerpt: Point taken. And a good point it is. Thank you for backing up your assertions as clearly as you have here; I appreciate it. I assume you're the same Dana Parker who wrote the "An Agreement At Last?" article in 1996 for Tape/Disc Business Magazine that I've been quoting lately, eh? Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 23:01:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA04145 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:01:42 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA04116 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:01:40 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28803 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:01:08 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:01:08 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000221230108.B28173@nacs.net> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:20:14PM -0700, Dana Parker wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > Unfortunately, as has been said over and over again, DVD films ain't > > programs. Neither is CSS. Reading the above law literally, this exemption > > only applies to making programs interoperative with other programs, not > > with particular types of media. > > > > Excuse me. I'm not so sure it's been established that DVD films aren't > programs. A few years ago, I did a white paper for a Canadian law firm to > establish, for taxation purposes, that DVD films ARE programs - actually, the > term was software as opposed to systems software. Here is an excerpt: > > DVD Video is the first consumer video delivery medium in which the term > “software” really applies. In multimedia development for compact disc > applications on computers, a third term, content, is commonly used to define > digitized data on a disc - usually audio or video - which is not strictly > applications software, but is certainly not to be considered systems software. > However, since a DVD Video player is not strictly a computer, but a dedicated > device like a VCR or CD audio player, and the “contents” of a DVD Video disc > are much more complex than the digitized audio data on a CD audio disc, or > video information on VHS cassettes, the definition of DVD Video discs as > software, but not systems software or content, requires an explanation. Huhn? First of all, we seem to be assuming the term software applies in the first place, and this is the explanation. I'd like to see how we came to that conclusion. More to the point, I'd like to see how we came to that conclusion without a definition of ``software'' per se. I like to use the definition "a set of `instructions' used to instruct a computer to perform an action or actions." I'm a geek and not a suit so, while completely accurate, it may not be a valid legal definition. > > The software on a DVD Video disc - or the stamper used to make that disc - is > considered applications software, for three reasons. First of all, applications How does the stamper used to make the disc constitute as software? I don't believe the stamper used to make CD-ROMs is considered software, as it is not in a machine readable format so it cannot be run by a machine. > software does not control the hardware - it performs a certain kind of > activity, which in the case of DVD Video, is to display a “program” of a > feature film. Within the software contained on the DVD Video disc are > navigational commands, such as branching, linking, and jumping. There are also > menus that will accept user input for choices in playback, language, subtitle, > rating, or camera angle. This is similar to the HTML in web pages. Although it is typically called HTML `code', the HTML itself does not perform any actions - the browser does. The HTML is simply the data and the browser is free to interpret it however it chooses. > All of these commands and choices, however, are unique > to the one particular title in which they appear - these commands are as much > an integral part of the DVD Video application in which they appear as the > actual “content” or digitized video and audio. Unlike systems software, the > commands or systems parameters for one DVD Video disc could not be used with > another. They do not control the hardware, but the program itself. The values > and systems parameters are “variables” that the DVD Video player uses in > conjunction with its “systems software” to control the hardware, very similar > to, for example, filenames created within an application that a computer > operating system can copy from one location to another using operating system > commands. In other words, "it has properties like software"? This differentiation from system software is probably part of the context within which the document was originally written, so I'm ignoring it. > > Second, DVD Video discs and the stampers used to form them must be considered > applications software, not “content”, because of the very nature of DVD title > development and manufacturing. As a glance at the development process shows, > the original input for DVD Video title development (usually a D1 master tape), > must be disassembled into its component audio and video parts, each component > separately digitized and encoded, subpictures generated, menus and navigational > controls programmed, and finally, all of these disparate elements are combined > into one disc image comprised of several files. The process of premastering the > disc image mixes the elements still further; no longer are the parts or files > in the disc image identifiable as such. They have been interleaved, made > redundant, scrambled, modulated, and encrypted. At this point, it would be > impossible, due to the development process and premastering, to determine which > parts are content and which are application - the application was developed > based on the content (for example, break points, subpictures, menus, camera > angles) and that customized application, therefore, cannot be used with any > other content. The whole of the data on the disc is now application software. So if you scramble content it becomes software on the DVD die? Are you trying to say that the content is `compiled'? If so, data and even bibliographies are compiled as well. > > Finally, if a DVD Video disc were to be played on a computer with a DVD ROM > drive, the application software on the disc would not control the hardware. The > application would be displayed and navigated using a DVD Video player emulation > program on the computer, which would mimic the capabilities of a DVD Video > player in reading the values and parameters from the disc. The emulation > program itself would control the computer’s hardware (DVD ROM drive, MPEG 2 > decoder, display, and CPU), and the DVD Video program would perform exactly as > it would on a dedicated, stand alone DVD Video player. In the near future, DVD > Video emulation will be part of the computer’s operating system. This paragraph, I think detracts rather than helps the argument that DVDs are software. Still, it seems that DVD content being software is the assumption and not the conclusion here. Honestly, I understand where you are coming from - the line between data and program is pretty blurry and will get blurrier over time (after all, the most undisputed type of progam - machine code - is simply data to the machine's CPU), but I don't think we can get many technical people to buy that DVD content is a program, let alone convince a court. In any case, it's quite clear that the intent of the law is to treat audio and video separate from programs, and if DVD audio/video doesn't apply to the first category, nothing does. > > > -- > Dana J. Parker > Consultant > http://www.cdpage.com > Contributing editor/standards columnist > Emedia magazine > http://www.emediapro.net > DVD PRO Conference Chair > http://www.dvdpro.net > I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression > http://www.eff.org/cafe > > mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com > -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 23:11:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA07385 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:11:52 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA07364 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:11:51 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA16828 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:12:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B20C70.F3D2CB5F@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:11:28 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221224851.D19640@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Point taken. And a good point it is. Thank you for backing up your assertions > as clearly as you have here; I appreciate it. Great, I thought I'd been filtered. The document itself goes into much more detail. Let me know if you want it. > I assume you're the same Dana Parker who wrote the "An Agreement At Last?" > article in 1996 for Tape/Disc Business Magazine that I've been quoting lately, eh? Yeah, but I thought I wrote it for Emedia (or CD-ROM Professional as it was known back then). I was writing for both in '96. I wrote a number of articles, columns, and news stories on CSS and the whole copy protection fiasco. I warned about the DMCA and what it would do to fair use; but it's no fun to be able to say I told you so. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 23:16:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA08918 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:16:42 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA08914 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:16:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 19787 invoked by uid 502); 22 Feb 2000 04:20:46 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:20:46 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Are we going in circles? Message-ID: <20000221232046.E19640@linuxpower.org> References: <200002220247.SAA26234@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002220247.SAA26234@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:47:07PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:47:07PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:38:27AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > >> greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >> >On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 07:20:15PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > >> >I've been at work all weekend, but I'm back now. :) > >> > > >> >If I'm reading the above correctly, we're talking about two things: arguing the point > >> >that Section 12 presumes guilt from the possibility of guilt (i.e., guilty until proven > >> >innocent), and doing a court demonstration to show the act of decryption in the process > >> >of playing back legally-obtained media. Am I correct? > >> > >> Yes and no. The demo was to state a principle. Our demo would be to show DeCSS is irrelevant. > > > >Lemme get this straight. Demoing DeCSS would demonstrate that DeCSS is irrelevant in > >getting around access control. > > In Windows it is. Okay, you've been very civil, so I'm going to be nice here and not go on the offensive. After all, we're all friends here. :) Here's what it comes down to: The court doesn't care. Demonstrating DeCSS in court will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that DeCSS circumvents access control. Period. As far as this case is concerned, that is the only evidence that a DeCSS demonstration will provide. Until the "authority" question is resolved, the simple fact that the MPAA is suing over this indicates that DeCSS is circumvention tech built without the authority of the copyright owner. That's the only thing, really, that this case is about. We can scream "but I can get to the material on Windows without DeCSS!" until we're blue in the face; it doesn't matter. This is a bad line of attack; it's too easy to defend against. If you want to show irrelevance, this isn't the way to do it. It will only convince Kaplan that it is indeed relevant to this case - that DeCSS is circumvention tech. > > >What's wrong with this picture? > > Selective listening? You cut out the best parts... Then perhaps you can clarify them. I think I cut out the worst parts. > >We'd only prove that > >DeCSS is an access control circumvention device and that the MPAA has a case. > > That I understand... So you're saying that by fighting this case we're fscked and by not fighting we're fscked. Care tro comment on this stalemate? I sure as hell have no idea what else to try. > > What are we going to do, make like the Greeks and hope the Gods start to feel sorry for us? I mean seriously should we evade the main topic when this goes before Kaplan, long enough to detour the case? > > I'm tryin' man... Though just to clear up the above... Of course I'm not saying that. But we have to know the difference between a pathetic attack and one that has a chance of succeeding, and not waste our time on attacks that are easily deflected. As I've said elsewhere here, I see two attacks so far. The first is a claim that sometimes circumvention tech is necessary to exercise fair use, and that DeCSS fits this criteria. The second approach is to exploit a possible hole in the RE exemption; we need to find out what "authority" means when the law defines circumvention as accessing content without the "authority" of the copyright owner. If we can show that the type of access provided by DeCSS doesn't come within the copyright owner's legal "authority", we can legally prove that DeCSS isn't legally circumvention tech at all. > dvd-discuss2eon.law.harvard.edu > I'll match your movie quotes and raise you a comment: To demonstrate that DeCSS is irrelevant to Windows platforms. That's the point. :) Why the double standard... Why Windows do users get to see and we can't? > This has nothing to do with Windows vs. Linux. That's a techie point of view, not a legal one. From a legal perspective, there is no double standard. If the DVD folks don't want to make a driver for Linux, that's their perogative; no law says they have to. But legally, unless we can show otherwise, DeCSS is still illegal circumvention technology, and is therefore illegal to distribute. We need to either prove that 1201 is bad law or that it doesn't apply. Whining about not having a Linux video player isn't going to do much else than piss off the judge. > > > >> That's scary. That brings up another point. If we win, it gets appealed guaranteed. The MPAA is not going to give up that easily, which is why I fear we've barely begun to fight. > >> > >> >Doing any sort of court demonstration would be ridiculous in this venue, because all > >> >we can do then is prove that DeCSS is circumvention technology. > >> > >> We can also prove it's irrelevant. > > > >Irrelevant to what??? To our case?? Come on. Think, McFly, think; do you know what would > >happen if I handed in my homework in your handwriting? I'd be kicked out of school! :) > > > > Okay Rob, you convinced me to play the devil, now I have a challenge for you. I honestly believe we're fscked if we battle in their sandbox. I keep saying we need to open the battlefield, I don't know how. Got any ideas? > Yes. Get out of the sandbox and into the playground. 1. Build a case that Section 12 must be violated sometimes in order to exercise fair use. 2. Research and find out the exact legal definition of "authority". For the record, I still think we need to build a working model of their case. But we also need to burn past our own denials and emotionalisms and get down to the truth about these things. Our stance is based on the belief that we have truth on our side - we need to stop believing in this and start finding out if it itself is true or not. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 23:26:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA12308 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:26:50 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA12305 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:26:49 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28845 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:26:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:26:15 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000221232615.C28173@nacs.net> References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221172351.K11768@linuxpower.org> <00022117405700.09344@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221224416.C19640@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000221224416.C19640@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:44:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > So far I see two possible points of attack: > > 1. In certain cases - such as DeCSS - access circumvention technology is necessary > to exercise fair use rights over material. Since in these cases access circumvention > tech actually has a legal application, it cannot be prohibited by law. Or something > to that effect. Devil's advocate: - Circumventing access control, by reasoning of the DMCA, doesn't have a legal application. Counter-argument: ??? > > 2. There is a potential loophole in the RE clause of 1201, and it has to do with > "authority". The RE clause defines circumvention as getting to the content, past > the access control, without the "authority" of the copyright owner. We need to > find out exactly what "authority" means in a legal sense. If we can show that the > copyright owner's "authority" doesn't extend to preventing fair use, then we may > be able to show that DeCSS is not circumvention tech at all as defined by 1201. > Devil's advocate: - Fair use isn't prevented, as consumers can make copies for home viewing with a VCR. We can even play DVDs under Linux - let me demonstrate this with a full blown, consumer-grade DVD player with an analog output and a video capture card. - We could tear this to shreads: a) Loss of functionality - no menus, multiple languages, etc. b) Loss of quality. c) Video capture card + full DVD player expensive (?) - Further, you can't make one single exception where circumvention is plausible, since the first exception renders the entire access control method useless. - Like the judge should care. Or should he? Can anybody think of more? (Please) I am NOT a lawyer, but I have been following this for some time now and I think we have the best arguments to date. Anybody else care to take shots at them or rebut my shots (or is it rebutt... I can't even spell - too late at night *sigh*) > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 21 23:56:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA19498 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:56:49 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA19495 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:56:48 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id UAA08800 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:56:29 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:56:29 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000221205629.W4856@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221172351.K11768@linuxpower.org> <00022117405700.09344@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221224416.C19640@linuxpower.org> <20000221232615.C28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000221232615.C28173@nacs.net>; from jasonf@shell.nacs.net on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:26:15PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jason M. Felice writes: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:44:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > So far I see two possible points of attack: > > > > 1. In certain cases - such as DeCSS - access circumvention technology is necessary > > to exercise fair use rights over material. Since in these cases access circumvention > > tech actually has a legal application, it cannot be prohibited by law. Or something > > to that effect. Things with a legal application are prohibited by law all the time. To use examples from earlier on this list -- guns. Lock picks. Others: Cuban cigars, marijuana, cocaine. To pursue the point: you might have a legal right to do something (in that the act itself was not proscribed by law), yet all of the feasible means of doing it might happen to be illegal, possibly for other reasons, or possibly to allow the legal act to be effectively prohibited indirectly, without causing so much political controversy. > Devil's advocate: > > - Circumventing access control, by reasoning of the DMCA, doesn't have a legal > application. > Counter-argument: ??? Circumventing access control _obviously_ has (otherwise) legal applications. I would expect to see the MPAA present the argument that those applications are irrelevant, not that they don't exist. (They might go so far as to say that those applications are trivial or only useful to a very small portion of the public.) > > 2. There is a potential loophole in the RE clause of 1201, and it has to do with > > "authority". The RE clause defines circumvention as getting to the content, past > > the access control, without the "authority" of the copyright owner. We need to > > find out exactly what "authority" means in a legal sense. If we can show that the > > copyright owner's "authority" doesn't extend to preventing fair use, then we may > > be able to show that DeCSS is not circumvention tech at all as defined by 1201. Now we have some bizarre word games with 1201. I read the anticircumvention rules as being conditions on the intent of the access control measure, not the intent of the circumventor. Am I mistaken to read them this way? > Devil's advocate: > > - Fair use isn't prevented, as consumers can make copies for home viewing with > a VCR. Have you heard of Macrovision? > We can even play DVDs under Linux - let me demonstrate this with a > full blown, consumer-grade DVD player with an analog output and a video > capture card. I would be interested to see whether your video capture card was confused by the Macrovision signal. > - We could tear this to shreads: > a) Loss of functionality - no menus, multiple languages, etc. > b) Loss of quality. Does fair use mean that the publisher has to give you _tech support_ when you try to make a copy and it doesn't come out as nice as you wanted? > c) Video capture card + full DVD player expensive (?) If you want to use the medium in an unintended way, why would it be unreasonable to expect you to have to pay more to do so? > - Further, you can't make one single exception where circumvention is plausible, > since the first exception renders the entire access control method useless. That's the sort of thing that unfortunately inclines judges toward "balancing" competing interests. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 00:02:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA21135 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:02:16 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA21132 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:02:15 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28875 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:01:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:01:38 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Message-ID: <20000222000138.D28173@nacs.net> References: <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> <20000220174929.B670@localhost> <000001bf7c32$0f99a600$f37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> <20000221180709.N11768@linuxpower.org> <4.1.20000221180803.00d6c770@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000221180803.00d6c770@law.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:56:41PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > [snip] > Are there any useful tools for the FAQ-writing process? [snip] > I keep hearing about FAQ-O-MATIC, but to my software-minimalist eye, I don't see anything easier than just using a text editor to make a plain-text file. Go to http://freshmeat.net and search on FAQ, I know there's more tools. Also, what is agreed on so far as a point-by-point analisis of 1201 (by section, sub-section, paragraph, and even word) would be good faq-fodder, IMHO. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 00:26:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA28367 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:26:40 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA28363 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:26:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 21877 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2000 05:22:31 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2000 05:22:31 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA03352; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:27:12 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:27:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200002220527.VAA03352@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Are we going in circles? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:47:07PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> >On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:38:27AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> >Okay, you've been very civil, so I'm going to be nice here and not go on the offensive. >After all, we're all friends here. :) >Here's what it comes down to: The court doesn't care. I keep banging my head on that one more and more. It hurts. >Demonstrating DeCSS in court will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that DeCSS circumvents >access control. Period. As far as this case is concerned, that is the only evidence that >a DeCSS demonstration will provide. I hate sandboxes. >If you want to show irrelevance, this isn't the way to do it. It will only convince >Kaplan that it is indeed relevant to this case - that DeCSS is circumvention tech. Irony is I made the same statement earlier to someone else. This case is evil. > >> >> >What's wrong with this picture? >> >> Selective listening? You cut out the best parts... > >Then perhaps you can clarify them. I think I cut out the worst parts. Sorry. Trigger happy. Won't happen again. >Of course I'm not saying that. But we have to know the difference between a pathetic >attack and one that has a chance of succeeding, and not waste our time on attacks that >are easily deflected. > >As I've said elsewhere here, I see two attacks so far. The first is a claim that sometimes >circumvention tech is necessary to exercise fair use, and that DeCSS fits this criteria. >The second approach is to exploit a possible hole in the RE exemption; we need to find out >what "authority" means when the law defines circumvention as accessing content without >the "authority" of the copyright owner. If we can show that the type of access provided >by DeCSS doesn't come within the copyright owner's legal "authority", we can legally >prove that DeCSS isn't legally circumvention tech at all. > This should go on the announce list. >We need to either prove that 1201 is bad law or that it doesn't apply. Whining about >not having a Linux video player isn't going to do much else than piss off the judge. > Funny thing about info theory sometimes both bad law and inapplicability coincide. :) We live in a universe that thrives on trade offs. > >Yes. Get out of the sandbox and into the playground. > >1. Build a case that Section 12 must be violated sometimes in order to exercise fair use. > >2. Research and find out the exact legal definition of "authority". > >For the record, I still think we need to build a working model of their case. But we also >need to burn past our own denials and emotionalisms and get down to the truth about these >things. Our stance is based on the belief that we have truth on our side - we need to >stop believing in this and start finding out if it itself is true or not. We have truth only as a guide. Everything else, all bets are off. I think this needs to go not into the FAQ but the welcome message of the mailing list. In FAQ newbies should take a quiz from the FAQ before coming on (I'm kidding.). I have half a mind to put this reply on the announce list. >Rob Warren Rares (sleeping on those two points. Let's rock.) >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 00:27:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA28630 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:27:36 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA28627 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:27:34 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA29174 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:26:40 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA15499; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:51:01 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: 21 Feb 2000 20:49:55 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 16 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <88t4hj$f4a$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <00022117405700.09344@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221224416.C19640@linuxpower.org> <20000221232615.C28173@nacs.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000221232615.C28173@nacs.net>, Jason M. Felice wrote: > Devil's advocate: > > - Circumventing access control, by reasoning of the DMCA, doesn't have a legal > application. Science. If such a line of reasoning were upheld as law, it would have a harmful impact on (legitimate!) scientific research into cryptography and computer security, and would have a chilling effect on researchers and on educators in the field. The end result would be that the security of our society's critical infrastructure would suffer, which isn't good. Of course, that is not of itself likely to be a full refutation, but if you want to assemble a counter-argument, I'll suggest it as one piece that might be worth looking at. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 00:39:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA31424 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:39:27 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA31421 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:39:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 7302 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Feb 2000 05:40:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000222054002.7301.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:40:02 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:40:02 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- sam th wrote: > > By the way, even in light of this fairly damning quote, I certainly > > do not think this is a settled issue. You might rephrase the > > question to "How did the Judge reason against 1201(f)". I think it > > best to state questions and answers in an FAQ as position-neutral. > > > I think the way you phrase it is assuming that the judge is reasoning > in a way different than the Congress did. However, I think the > legislative history makes clear that the judge is reasoning in > _exactly_ the same manner. One quote does not a legislative history make. Also, the district judge has only ruled on a preliminary judgement where the lawyers for our side weren't even present. He didn't hear a rebuttal because the defense hadn't had time to prepare. He heard one argument making a case that 1201(f) is "for computer programs only". He went with it. What should we do, roll over and die because we lost the preliminary injunction. No, we have to forcefully advocate our position with the idea that we can change the judges first impression. If he's truly formed a solid opinion without hearing both sides present their cases, then he's a bad judge. Even if he has, this case will be appealed and the circuit court will get to hear the arguement again. > > As a matter of rebuttal, this quote is NOT among those that were > > passed into law. The best record of legislative history is the plain > > text of the bill itself. > However, the bill is ambigous as to what precisely a computer program > is. Thus, we look to the legisative history, which is very clear. I would say just the opposite. The quote you provided is very ambiguous regarding whether data files are part of the program, so we have to look at the text of the law which I don't see any ambiguity in (see below). > However, Congress intended for data not to be included under this > exception. Really. Care to support your arguement? You provided a quote which doesn't speak to the question of whether a data file is a considered part of the program. I read your quote and the text of the law as saying that the reverse engineering exception doesn't apply if using it would result in copyright infringement. You may engineer a computer program replacement, but by doing so you don't magically get a copyright licence. > Section 1201(f) does not apply to audio-visual works. I realize that > this is a bad thing, and that Congress should have written the law > differently, but they didn't. We have to deal with that fact, not try > to deny it. 1201(f)(2) applies to development of access control circumvention programs with no stated qualification. When you say it "does not apply to audio-visual works" you are correct in that by reverse engineering an audio-visual playback tool no "fair use" of the actual works is obtained. For example, if you hack an internet movie broadcast descrambler, you fail 1201(f)(2) because your only use is for copyright infringement. The relevant part of 1201(f)(2) reads: " ... a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure ... 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." The last clause says "infringement", as in a (b)(2) claim, and begs a "fair use" arguement. In other words you can reverse engineer an access control program and thereby get an exception to (a)(2) only if by doing so you don't violate (b)(1). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 00:59:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA03206 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:59:51 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.118.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA03203 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:59:50 -0500 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01352 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:01:06 -0600 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:01:06 -0600 (CST) From: sam th X-Sender: sam@localhost.localdomain To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... In-Reply-To: <20000222054002.7301.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: [snip] > One quote does not a legislative history make. Also, the district judge > has only ruled on a preliminary judgement where the lawyers for our > side weren't even present. He didn't hear a rebuttal because the > defense hadn't had time to prepare. He heard one argument making a case > that 1201(f) is "for computer programs only". He went with it. Unfortunately, although it is true that the EFF did not have adequate preparation time, that does not mean that they would have come up with some miraculous argument, given a few more days. > > What should we do, roll over and die because we lost the preliminary > injunction. No, we have to forcefully advocate our position with the > idea that we can change the judges first impression. If he's truly > formed a solid opinion without hearing both sides present their cases, > then he's a bad judge. Even if he has, this case will be appealed and > the circuit court will get to hear the arguement again. > > > > > As a matter of rebuttal, this quote is NOT among those that were > > > passed into law. The best record of legislative history is the > plain > > > text of the bill itself. > > However, the bill is ambigous as to what precisely a computer program > > is. Thus, we look to the legisative history, which is very clear. > I would say just the opposite. The quote you provided is very ambiguous > regarding whether data files are part of the program, so we have to > look at the text of the law which I don't see any ambiguity in (see > below). > I am not sure what you mean by ambigous here. The cite I provided states that teh exception was not meant to apply to circumvention of access controls on audio-visual products. That seems very non-ambigous on refering to DVDs. > > > However, Congress intended for data not to be included under this > > exception. > Really. Care to support your arguement? You provided a quote which > doesn't speak to the question of whether a data file is a considered > part of the program. I read your quote and the text of the law as > saying that the reverse engineering exception doesn't apply if using it > would result in copyright infringement. You may engineer a computer > program replacement, but by doing so you don't magically get a > copyright licence. I am not sure where "data files" got brought in. The real problem here is a misunderstanding of the intention of 1201(f). This is intended to allow reverse engineering of access control that prevent access to computer programs. A good example of this is copy protection software for a game. If you needed to defeat that copy protection to make the game work on linux, then 1201(f) would apply to you. 1201(f) does not apply to making the access control work with your software, but to making the program controlled by the access control work with your software. Thus, the exception only applies to access controls on software, not on audio-visual data, or anything else that is not software. > > > Section 1201(f) does not apply to audio-visual works. I realize that > > this is a bad thing, and that Congress should have written the law > > differently, but they didn't. We have to deal with that fact, not > try > > to deny it. > 1201(f)(2) applies to development of access control circumvention > programs with no stated qualification. When you say it "does not apply > to audio-visual works" you are correct in that by reverse engineering > an audio-visual playback tool no "fair use" of the actual works is > obtained. For example, if you hack an internet movie broadcast > descrambler, you fail 1201(f)(2) because your only use is for copyright > infringement. But this is not the only test you must meet. You must also be doing this reverse engineering "for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independtly created computer program with other programs". Allow me to attempt to explain with some ASCII art: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX AAAA XXXXX BBBBB XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The X's represent access control. now if what you want is to interoperate with BBBBB, a program, then 1201(f) applies to you. If you want to interoperate with XXXXX, the access control device, then 1201(f) does not apply. We want the latter, and therefore 1201(f) does not apply to us. > > The relevant part of 1201(f)(2) reads: > " ... a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent > a technological measure ... 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." > > The last clause says "infringement", as in a (b)(2) claim, and begs a > "fair use" arguement. In other words you can reverse engineer an access > control program and thereby get an exception to (a)(2) only if by doing > so you don't violate (b)(1). > And if you are trying to achieve interoperability between 2 "computer programs" - a category that Congress did not intend DVD's to fall into. It's too bad, but it's true. > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > sam th sytobinh@uchicago.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 01:30:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA08749 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 01:30:52 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA08746 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 01:30:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 23942 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2000 06:26:41 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2000 06:26:41 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA06419; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:31:22 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:31:22 -0800 Message-Id: <200002220631.WAA06419@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jason M. Felice wrote: >On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:20:14PM -0700, Dana Parker wrote: >> >Huhn? First of all, we seem to be assuming the term software applies in the >first place, and this is the explanation. I'd like to see how we came to that >conclusion. We didn't the other individuals in that case did. See below. >More to the point, I'd like to see how we came to that conclusion >without a definition of ``software'' per se. Good point except we do have one. Bunch of instructions. >I like to use the definition "a set of `instructions' used to instruct a >computer to perform an action or actions." I'm a geek and not a suit so, while >completely accurate, it may not be a valid legal definition. >> >> The software on a DVD Video disc - or the stamper used to make that disc - is >> considered applications software, for three reasons. First of all, applications > >How does the stamper used to make the disc constitute as software? I don't >believe the stamper used to make CD-ROMs is considered software, as it is not >in a machine readable format so it cannot be run by a machine. Software is a bunch of instructions. Binary machine executables are runnables. Source code is still software. Just for humans to digest as opposed to machines. >> software does not control the hardware - it performs a certain kind of >> activity, which in the case of DVD Video, is to display a ?program? of a >> feature film. Within the software contained on the DVD Video disc are >> navigational commands, such as branching, linking, and jumping. There are also >> menus that will accept user input for choices in playback, language, subtitle, >> rating, or camera angle. > >This is similar to the HTML in web pages. Although it is typically called >HTML `code', the HTML itself does not perform any actions - the browser does. >The HTML is simply the data and the browser is free to interpret it however >it chooses. It's software. Otherwise Barnes and Noble is ripping people off by selling Programming HTML type books. A table in HTML is data unless it instructs. Like Molly's Pet Shop has 5 cats, 2 dogs, a snake, and a walrus. Definitely data. That tells me nothing about what I should do the next moment. Those are just facts. >> All of these commands and choices, however, are unique >> to the one particular title in which they appear - these commands are as much >> an integral part of the DVD Video application in which they appear as the >> actual ?content? or digitized video and audio. Unlike systems software, the >> commands or systems parameters for one DVD Video disc could not be used with >> another. They do not control the hardware, but the program itself. The values >> and systems parameters are ?variables? that the DVD Video player uses in >> conjunction with its ?systems software? to control the hardware, very similar >> to, for example, filenames created within an application that a computer >> operating system can copy from one location to another using operating system >> commands. > >In other words, "it has properties like software"? This differentiation from >system software is probably part of the context within which the document was >originally written, so I'm ignoring it. The problem is she's right. The browsing functions are a product created to match that film. Like say zooming in on a scene. Remember, just like most Discs at a computer show they're not really interactive. They're pre-prepared to get the most purchases. >> >> Second, DVD Video discs and the stampers used to form them must be considered >> applications software, not ?content?, because of the very nature of DVD title >> development and manufacturing. As a glance at the development process shows, >> the original input for DVD Video title development (usually a D1 master tape), >> must be disassembled into its component audio and video parts, each component >> separately digitized and encoded, subpictures generated, menus and navigational >> controls programmed, and finally, all of these disparate elements are combined >> into one disc image comprised of several files. The process of premastering the >> disc image mixes the elements still further; no longer are the parts or files >> in the disc image identifiable as such. They have been interleaved, made >> redundant, scrambled, modulated, and encrypted. At this point, it would be >> impossible, due to the development process and premastering, to determine which >> parts are content and which are application - the application was developed >> based on the content (for example, break points, subpictures, menus, camera >> angles) and that customized application, therefore, cannot be used with any >> other content. The whole of the data on the disc is now application software. > >So if you scramble content it becomes software on the DVD die? Are you trying >to say that the content is `compiled'? If so, data and even bibliographies are >compiled as well. No not scrambled. Scrabbled. That's the key here. They did this on purpose, however as I'm beginning to find out it could be a mistake on their part if the browsing extras are less connected to the movie than I'm assuming. Then it's questionable what you paid a license for. Sure you paid a license for the movie, but did you pay a license for the programs or not the program but the extra movie material in the extra pieces? Look at it a different way., This was probably arranged with something like Macromedia Director. That script itself is software. > >> >> Finally, if a DVD Video disc were to be played on a computer with a DVD ROM >> drive, the application software on the disc would not control the hardware. The >> application would be displayed and navigated using a DVD Video player emulation >> program on the computer, which would mimic the capabilities of a DVD Video >> player in reading the values and parameters from the disc. The emulation >> program itself would control the computer?s hardware (DVD ROM drive, MPEG 2 >> decoder, display, and CPU), and the DVD Video program would perform exactly as >> it would on a dedicated, stand alone DVD Video player. In the near future, DVD >> Video emulation will be part of the computer?s operating system. > >This paragraph, I think detracts rather than helps the argument that DVDs are >software. Still, it seems that DVD content being software is the assumption and >not the conclusion here. >Honestly, I understand where you are coming from - the line between data and >program is pretty blurry and will get blurrier over time (after all, the most >undisputed type of progam - machine code - is simply data to the machine's CPU), >but I don't think we can get many technical people to buy that DVD content is >a program, let alone convince a court. No but the addons are part of the package. which means the MPAA may argue that you paid a license for the whole shebang not just the movie. The point is you can't play that direction script with just any movie. Only with that movie. I think this is what Dana's getting at. >> >> -- >> Dana J. Parker >> Consultant >> http://www.cdpage.com >> Contributing editor/standards columnist >> Emedia magazine >> http://www.emediapro.net >> DVD PRO Conference Chair >> http://www.dvdpro.net >> I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression >> http://www.eff.org/cafe >> >> mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com >> > >-Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 01:49:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA12748 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 01:49:06 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA12745 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 01:49:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 22969 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Feb 2000 06:49:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000222064940.22968.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:49:40 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:49:40 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Encryption Research To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Under 1201(g)(4), there is an exception to the provisions in 1201(a)(2) for "good faith" encryption research. Good faith is defined by the four conditions of 1201(g)(2), and subject to three consideration "factors" in (g)(3). I think most of us have written this off, but I'd like to explore it a little more. Given that "encryption research" is part of the "progress of science" as well as first amendment territory, any limitations on this must pass strict scrutiny. My idea is that if we can use this to loosen the requirements, we might be able to make it work. I think you can attack the (g)(2)(C) requirement for effort to obtain authorization on the grounds that it can produce a chilling affect on the reseach. What company would be happy about having it's access control system cracked in the name of research. This restriction is overly burdensome on the potential researcher. Similarly, the (g)(3)(B) factor considering encryption education or professional experience would seem to limit the right to engage in research to a small subset of people. A new or rising encryption investigator cannot be so excluded. Scientific inquiry is every persons right - it's not the exclusive province of some guild of scientists with resumes. In fact, the best way to learn to do original research is to repeat the famous research of the past. Anyway, the upshot of it all is that the publication of a DeCSS advances the progress of encryption science by providing to the public a concrete, non-trivial, case study in cracking a non-trivial, but flawed encryption system. The burdensome restrictions of 1201(g) are not valid under the copyright clause, which subordinates the exclusive rights of the author to the "progress of science". __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 03:35:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA26017 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 03:35:53 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA26014 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 03:35:51 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12NAnx-0007f5-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:36:25 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:36:25 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Encryption Research In-Reply-To: <20000222064940.22968.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Under 1201(g)(4), there is an exception to the provisions in 1201(a)(2) > for "good faith" encryption research. Good faith is defined by the four > conditions of 1201(g)(2), and subject to three consideration "factors" > in (g)(3). > > I think most of us have written this off, but I'd like to explore it a > little more. Given that "encryption research" is part of the "progress > of science" as well as first amendment territory, any limitations on > this must pass strict scrutiny. My idea is that if we can use this to > loosen the requirements, we might be able to make it work. Last time I read the relevant section it struck me that the exemption is only a grant for acts of circumvention in line with the research. When I did the cryptoanalysis now only linked to from crypto.gq.nu , it was not necessary for me to even once to 'circumvent the protection' on any DVD in order to do the analysis. I worked only from the anonymously published algorithm. However the published algorthm is what we is under attack by the MPAA. Unless the right to publish such source coude is protected by law, the encryption research exemption is pretty useless as it stands. The upside of this is that as I did not 'perform acts of circumvention' I am not required to notify the relevant authorities directly about the findings. IANAL, but that is my reading. frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 04:31:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA06894 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:31:07 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA06891 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:31:06 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12NBfQ-0003jO-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:31:40 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:31:40 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: <38B1ACFB.ACE7B621@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Ian Hay wrote: > To be blunt, any -sane- court will tell you to come back in 50-90 years > when such a circumstance as above has actually come to pass. Unless you > can provide some evidence that film distributors are releasing > public-domain films (I am not aware of any, though someone has suggested > the Bicycle Thief) in encrypted form, then the above argument is a > complete red herring. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6305081034/o/qid=951211772/sr=2-2/104-4816406-7691643 The Bicycle Thief (1948) Region 1 encoding (US and Canada only) frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 04:53:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA12206 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:53:14 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA12203 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:53:11 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12NC0o-0004oU-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:53:46 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:53:45 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: <20000221205629.W4856@cty-alum.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > We can even play DVDs under Linux - let me demonstrate this with a > > full blown, consumer-grade DVD player with an analog output and a video > > capture card. > > I would be interested to see whether your video capture card was confused > by the Macrovision signal. Next time you buy a video capture card, buy one from ATI, preferrably before they get hauled to court on some DMCA charge. frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 04:55:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA12798 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:55:58 -0500 Received: from kpbgintra.kpbg.wa.gov.au ([167.30.78.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA12795 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:55:55 -0500 Received: from darrell ([10.10.1.127]) by kpbgintra.kpbg.wa.gov.au (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA5B4A for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:49:47 +0800 From: "Darrell Horrocks" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:54:58 +0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20000221224416.C19640@linuxpower.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think that I am coming around to Rob's point of view which I feel is the "sandbox" of which Rares(?) was speaking. I think that we either need to utilise these two points below, or use the law and weaknesses of these two points to bring in fair use, copyright and any other area of law to bring it into the "playground". I have tried to condense the thoughts down though. Oh, and a FAQ is definately the way to go. -- >Rob said: So far I see two possible points of attack: 1. In certain cases - such as DeCSS - access circumvention technology is necessary to exercise fair use rights over material. Since in these cases access circumvention tech actually has a legal application, it cannot be prohibited by law. Or something to that effect. 2. There is a potential loophole in the RE clause of 1201, and it has to do with "authority". The RE clause defines circumvention as getting to the content, past the access control, without the "authority" of the copyright owner. We need to find out exactly what "authority" means in a legal sense. If we can show that the copyright owner's "authority" doesn't extend to preventing fair use, then we may be able to show that DeCSS is not circumvention tech at all as defined by 1201. -- >From a technical viewpoint, how does DeCSS decrypt the DVD? Does it use the keys that are already on the DVD, or were these keys used to create an independant solution? I feel that this has direct relevance to Rob's second point above, as if DeCSS IS using the keys on the DVD, then only the authority of playing the DVD is in question. Related questions: 1) Is it necessary to gain this authority, or is it necessary for the plaintiff to deny this authority? If this is in question, does it revert back to the copyright section? 2) What rights are granted if you have not agreed to a contract? The argument that DVD content is a program may be of some use. Can anyone find a definition of a program in software law? But is this shooting ourselves in the foot? Does the software law create a workable argument, or one any better than the one that is up right now? >From a devil's advocate perspective, I think that the plaintiff is much more likely to use the following simple argument. 1) Establish DeCSS as a way of decrypting an encrypted work 2) Show this program was posted on the defendants websites 3) Show that this posting = trafficking. I think this fulfils the argument for the plaintiffs. Am I right? Lets keep this going, because I do think that we are achieving something here (apart from depression ;-) ) Darrell Horrocks darrell73@technologist.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 05:44:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA23363 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 05:44:19 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA23359 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 05:44:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id MAA22687 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:44:52 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:44:51 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: <20000221084311.Q11768@linuxpower.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> Again, my point is that the access provided by DeCSS is >> non-circumventing access and is thereby not covered by the prohibition >> against '-all- circumvention'. > >There is a legal "access control" mechanism - CSS - attached to DVD >content. Non-circumventing access would, by definition, be working within >CSS to gain access to underlying content. The only way to do this would >be with a licensed key; DeCSS does not do this. A naive argument against this would be that the actual encryption keys are stored on disc and that they were not protected to the degree demanded by the DMCA wording. Nitpicking which does not stand up to a reasonable challenge, of course. >This is one of the truly evil points of Section 12 - where there was one >crime, now there is two. And you don't have to be guilty of both to be >guilty of one. There's this whole "guilt from possibility of guilt" >principle going on here that's just plain ugly, and makes this a bad law. Question: can such pure prophylaxis raise constitutional issues? For instance, the protection afforded by DMCA's ban against trafficking in something which *might* do harm seems a bit overbroad... Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 06:14:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA30999 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:14:32 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA30996 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:14:30 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id NAA27969 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:15:06 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:15:05 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Steven Barker wrote: >> At any rate, it doesn't matter. No one is being sued for infringing access, >> only trafficking in circumvention tech. > >True, but if using that tech is not any kind of infringement, a case can be >made that it does not illegally circumvent access controls. If the >circumvention is legal, the distribution is legal. Emm, that will be a problem. From the hearing transcript: MS. GROSS: I'm sorry. It seems to me that there's no direct infringement. If you were not infringing a copyrighted work then there's nothing that shows how anyone is providing a tool to others that are doing that. THE COURT: The charge against your clients is providing a device which is a means for circumventing an access limiting factor. The infringement would be done by someone else, although it might be done by your client, it need not be. Nor is the infringement essential to the violation of 1201. Is there some error in that, counsel? The last sentence is especially worrisome, as Kaplan asserts that infringement does not need to happen for the trafficking charge to hold. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 06:40:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA05324 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:40:44 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA05321 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:40:42 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12NDgt-000Hv4-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:41:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 22 Feb 100 12:41:18 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "Frank Andrew Stevenson" at Feb 22, 0 10:31:40 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6305081034/o/qid=951211772/sr=2-2/104-4816406-7691643 > The Bicycle Thief (1948) > Region 1 encoding (US and Canada only) Could someone check whether this disc is actually CSS scrambled? (Region coding, which is simply a byte in a file on the disc, does not imply CSS) Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 07:10:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA12129 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:10:32 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA12126 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:10:31 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id OAA07445; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:11:04 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:11:03 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: greslin@linuxpower.org cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... In-Reply-To: <20000221171131.H11768@linuxpower.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >So I'm volunteering here. Give me questions you think should be on the FAQ, >and I'll write it up and put it on my own site. If Harvard wants to put it >here too, great; then it will be an official FAQ. Obvious ones: 1) What is CSS/DeCSS? What do they do? Who made them? 2) Who are the people on this list and why the list was created 3) What cases are currently proceeding and who is involved (good guys, bad guys, allegations, judges, current status) 4) Why is MPAA attacking DeCSS? 5) Basics of conventional copyright law and how it applies here 6) DMCA and Section 17 and how they apply to CSS/DeCSS 7) Copyright infringement vs. trafficking in circumvention tech 8) Overturning DMCA/Section 17 vs. winning a particular case (i.e. fighting mpaa vs. fighting dmca/whatever) 9) Constitutional arguments and why they might not be appropriate 10) Where to find more (links to relevant places, (textual links) to css/decss technical stuff, sites devoted to the subject) Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 07:18:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA13442 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:18:13 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA13439 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:18:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id OAA08426 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:18:47 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:18:46 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA In-Reply-To: <20000221222016.13652.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: >For example program A&B could be MS Word and we make Star-Office to >read .doc files. Or it could be CSS and we make DeCSS to read .vob >files. CSS is generic encryption. Why not construct a ToCSS freeware implementation to demonstrate this point - haha.doc.css, you know? Also, is there a player out there which cannot handle non-CSS DVD's? That would prove that there is no alternative to using CSS and, in conjunction with a PD distribution of just about anything, support the overbreadth arguments made elsewhere on the list. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 08:37:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA30665 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:37:07 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA30661 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:37:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id PAA20527 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:37:41 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:37:40 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, sam th wrote: >prevent access to computer programs. A good example of this is copy >protection software for a game. If you needed to defeat that copy >protection to make the game work on linux, then 1201(f) would apply to >you. 1201(f) does not apply to making the access control work with your >software, but to making the program controlled by the access control work >with your software. This cannot be right since it probably constitutes infringement, in the proper sense of the term. Instead, the reverse engineering clause would, to me, seem to be intended for situations in which you need to make a product of your own which works with the content but cannot obtain a licence, per se. I think the clause comes from antitrust and compulsory licencing backgrounds. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 09:08:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA07416 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:08:42 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA07413 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:08:41 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA29759 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:09:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:08:20 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221230108.B28173@nacs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > Huhn? First of all, we seem to be assuming the term software applies in the > first place, and this is the explanation. I'd like to see how we came to that > conclusion. More to the point, I'd like to see how we came to that conclusion > without a definition of ``software'' per se. The excerpt is from a paper I wrote for an entirely different case. It is seven pages long and includes three parts: an explanation of DVD, an explanation of how DVDs are created, and an explanation and confirmation of why DVDs are software. It has figures and pictures and definitions. I excerpted the relevant part, which did not happen to include the definition of software, which is: Software is generally defined as a set of coded instructions that enable a computer to do useful work. The two primary categories of software are operating systems and applications. The operating system (OS), or systems software, controls hardware and provides a foundation on which software applications can run. Popular operating systems include MS DOS, the Macintosh OS, Windows, Windows NT, Windows 95, and UNIX. Applications are programs that help people perform a certain type of work or activity on a computer. Applications are created to work with a certain type of operating system - for example, Word for Windows is a word processing program designed to run on a computer using the Windows operating system. > I like to use the definition "a set of `instructions' used to instruct a > computer to perform an action or actions." I'm a geek and not a suit so, while > completely accurate, it may not be a valid legal definition. See above. > How does the stamper used to make the disc constitute as software? I don't > believe the stamper used to make CD-ROMs is considered software, as it is not > in a machine readable format so it cannot be run by a machine. The stamper is a negative image of the data layer in the final disc. They CAN be read by machine - special verification players that check for errors before the stampers are used to make discs. But that's not relevant to this case - it was to the other one. > This is similar to the HTML in web pages. Although it is typically called > HTML `code', the HTML itself does not perform any actions - the browser does. > The HTML is simply the data and the browser is free to interpret it however > it chooses. No, the instructions in DVD do perform actions. DVD players are dumb boxes with system parameters and navigation parameters. The program is on the disc. Not that this matters, since we're not talking about stand-alone players, we're talking about a player PROGRAM on a PC, which plays the PROGRAM on the disc. see http://www.emediapro.net/cdrompro/0896CP/parker8.html, scroll down. > So if you scramble content it becomes software on the DVD die? Are you trying > to say that the content is `compiled'? If so, data and even bibliographies are > compiled as well. No, if you include instructions, menus, navigational commands, etc. unique to the content, and make them indistinguishable from the content, and becomes a program. Forget the stamper for now. Not neccessarily "compiled" - but it IS multiplexed and authored. > This paragraph, I think detracts rather than helps the argument that DVDs are > software. Still, it seems that DVD content being software is the assumption and > not the conclusion here. What would you call it? It is not just audio/video content. There are navigation commands, menus, subpictures, titles, etc., that are unique to each and every dataset (content) and that are required in order to view the dataset (the audio/video). Furthermore, many (if not most) DVD titles now coming out are in reality DVD-ROMS, or hybrids - they contain games, Web connections, and other material that will ONLY play on a DVD-enabled PC. > Honestly, I understand where you are coming from - the line between data and > program is pretty blurry and will get blurrier over time (after all, the most > undisputed type of progam - machine code - is simply data to the machine's CPU), > but I don't think we can get many technical people to buy that DVD content is > a program, let alone convince a court. In any case, it's quite clear that the > intent of the law is to treat audio and video separate from programs, and if > DVD audio/video doesn't apply to the first category, nothing does. OK try this: what's a program? Something that controls hardware to let you do something with it, right? and what's data? something that you control with a program and hardware. What do you call a dedicated program that already has the data embedded in it (like a game)? -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 09:13:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA08375 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:13:01 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA08372 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:13:00 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA00168 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:13:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B29958.E6E90D76@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:12:40 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > >For example program A&B could be MS Word and we make Star-Office to > >read .doc files. Or it could be CSS and we make DeCSS to read .vob > >files. > > CSS is generic encryption. Why not construct a ToCSS freeware implementation > to demonstrate this point - haha.doc.css, you know? > > Also, is there a player out there which cannot handle non-CSS DVD's? That > would prove that there is no alternative to using CSS and, in conjunction > with a PD distribution of just about anything, support the overbreadth > arguments made elsewhere on the list. CSS is voluntary on the part of the disc's publisher. Any player can read a disc without CSS. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 09:40:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA15259 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:40:11 -0500 Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts1.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.139]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA15256 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:40:10 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.235.17]) by tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000222144015.OTRZ13123.tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:40:15 -0500 Message-ID: <38B29E46.C50826DE@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:33:42 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Steven Barker wrote: > > >> At any rate, it doesn't matter. No one is being sued for infringing access, > >> only trafficking in circumvention tech. > > > >True, but if using that tech is not any kind of infringement, a case can be > >made that it does not illegally circumvent access controls. If the > >circumvention is legal, the distribution is legal. > > Emm, that will be a problem. From the hearing transcript: > > > MS. GROSS: I'm sorry. It seems to me that there's no direct infringement. If > you were not infringing a copyrighted work then there's nothing that shows > how anyone is providing a tool to others that are doing that. > > THE COURT: The charge against your clients is providing a device which is a > means for circumventing an access limiting factor. The infringement would be > done by someone else, although it might be done by your client, it need not > be. Nor is the infringement essential to the violation of 1201. Is there > some error in that, counsel? > > > The last sentence is especially worrisome, as Kaplan asserts that > infringement does not need to happen for the trafficking charge to hold. Your worry is justified (because it is true) but that is not evidenced by the above quote: Kaplan was referring in the last sentence to infringment by the Defendant. As such, that whole statement by Kaplan is also -wholly- incorrect. (Not that he didn't interpret 1201(a)(2) correctly in other places, but it would have been nice if we lost on a -uniformily -correct- reading of the law.) The idea that "the infringment would be done by someone else" is an incorrect reading of (a)(2): it is a perfectly correct reading of 1201(b) - it is (b) that contemplates -infringment- being done by the end-user of the circumventing device. Here we see the judge assuming that under (a)(2), infringment would be done by -someone-: what he misses is that infringment is not necessary under (a)(2) by the Defendant -or anyone else-. This is at this point a side note, admittedly, and as most people in this list have grasped, a consistently correct reading of the statute would not have led to a different result, but it would be nice if, were we to lose, we would lose on a correct reading of 1201. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 10:36:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31108 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:36:22 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31105 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:36:21 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12NHMw-0006XU-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:36:58 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 22 Feb 100 16:36:56 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> from "Dana Parker" at Feb 22, 0 07:08:20 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > No, if you include instructions, menus, navigational commands, etc. unique > to the content, and make them indistinguishable from the content, and > becomes a program. Forget the stamper for now. Not neccessarily "compiled" > - but it IS multiplexed and authored. Maybe it would be helpful to provide examples of interpreted languages such as BASIC. The code is meaningless to the processor, it provides instructions which are executed by a program (interpreter). It may or not be something of a stretch to call an MPEG player an interpreter for MPEG files, which after all contain instructions on colour which pixel should be when. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 10:39:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA32467 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:39:49 -0500 Received: from dial65.roadrunner.com (dial65.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.65]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA32464 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:39:47 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial65.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA00799 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:43:11 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:43:11 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000222084311.B707@localhost> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221230108.B28173@nacs.net> <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com>; from Dana Parker on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:08:20AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:08:20AM -0700, Dana Parker wrote: > OK try this: what's a program? Something that controls hardware to let you > do something with it, right? and what's data? something that you control > with a program and hardware. What do you call a dedicated program that > already has the data embedded in it (like a game)? For text-oriented documents there are several programming languages with which people are generally familiar. Perhaps a comparison with some languages people are familiar with will clarify the "DVD language". (1) HTML is a mark-up language. I don't believe that HTML 1.0 or 2.0 can be used to solve arbitrary programming problems. This is why cgi and perl get used. (2) Postscript is a Turning-complete page-description language (i.e. with primitives intended for making images on a page, but it can be used to program anything you can do in C). (3) TeX is a complete formatting language. How does the "DVD language" compare? Are there additional features that do not compare with html, ps or tex? Do you have a URL for your first report? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 10:59:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA06477 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:59:41 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA06456 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:59:40 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.233] (helo=ip233.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12NHjS-0005h1-00; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:00:15 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:59:24 GMT Message-ID: <38b2b03c.5371242@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221230108.B28173@nacs.net> <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> <20000222084311.B707@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20000222084311.B707@localhost> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id KAA06457 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:43:11 -0700, Paul wrote: >(1) HTML is a mark-up language. I don't believe that HTML 1.0 or 2.0 >can be used to solve arbitrary programming problems. This is why >cgi and perl get used. >(2) Postscript is a Turning-complete page-description language (i.e. >with primitives intended for making images on a page, but it can be used >to program anything you can do in C). >(3) TeX is a complete formatting language. > >How does the "DVD language" compare? Are there additional features >that do not compare with html, ps or tex? Do you have a URL for >your first report? DVD has 128 unique commands that operate in "Program Chains." Sonic Solutions has a nice booklet on DVD structure and the nature of program chains, etc. The PDF is at: http://www.dvdcreator.com/pdf/dvd_primer.pdf >From this booklet (pg. 18), "Each Program Chain is made up of a pre-command, a group of programs, and a post-command..." __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 11:19:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA13131 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:19:50 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA13128 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:19:49 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA10934 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:20:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B2B711.2EDDC06B@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:19:29 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: > > > > No, if you include instructions, menus, navigational commands, etc. unique > > to the content, and make them indistinguishable from the content, and > > becomes a program. Forget the stamper for now. Not neccessarily "compiled" > > - but it IS multiplexed and authored. > > Maybe it would be helpful to provide examples of interpreted languages such > as BASIC. The code is meaningless to the processor, it provides > instructions which are executed by a program (interpreter). It may or not be > something of a stretch to call an MPEG player an interpreter for MPEG files, > which after all contain instructions on colour which pixel should be when. > > Sham Just in case it isn't clear: an MPEG player is NOT The same thing as a DVD Video player. DVD Video files are not strictly MPEG 2 files. They are a multiplexed mixture of code, audio, and video. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 11:27:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17951 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:27:35 -0500 Received: from dial115.roadrunner.com (dial115.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.115]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17922 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:27:30 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial115.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA00997 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:30:51 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:30:50 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Message-ID: <20000222093050.C707@localhost> References: <20000222054002.7301.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000222054002.7301.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:40:02PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:40:02PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: [ ... ] > The relevant part of 1201(f)(2) reads: > " ... a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent > a technological measure ... 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." > > The last clause says "infringement", as in a (b)(2) claim, and begs a > "fair use" arguement. In other words you can reverse engineer an access > control program and thereby get an exception to (a)(2) only if by doing > so you don't violate (b)(1). I think this may be a high-mileage point. Taking the fair use point you just made and running with it: (i) 1201(f)(1), (2), (3) Reverse engineering - "...does not constitute infringement under this title." Where I empahsize the word "title". 106 -> 120 should kick in now. (ii) (g)(2)(D), (g)(3)(A) Encryption research - "...does not constitute infringement under this title." (iii) (j)(2), (j)(3)(B) Security Testing - "infringement under this title." If the MPAA want to claim that access control and trafficking, 1201(a) and (b), should not be seen in the light of the copyright clause, they are going to have to explain why there are 7 references to infringement in the sections governing the research that is a necessary prerequisite to violating (a) and (b), or to validating that the (a)(3) anti-circumvention measure is secure. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 11:37:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA22864 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:37:07 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA22861 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:37:06 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA30090 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:36:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:36:27 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000222113626.I28173@nacs.net> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221230108.B28173@nacs.net> <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Okay. I slept on it and I have some thoughts and a partial reversal of opinion (as well as I've read this thread). Note: IANAL. First, I think it's essential to note that the law clearly intends to make a distinction between audio/visual media and computer programs, and as such I don't think we could reasonably argue that `The Matrix' is really a program and not an audio/visual work. However, the line between program and data *is* very blurry and will certainly become more so over time. Whether something is "program" or "data" is very much an issue of context - what is a program for a CPU is data for an appropriate disassembler, for example. Also, a Perl script is interpreted, and as such is treated as data by the perl interpreter. To further confuse the issue, I've seen a perl program which can be interpreted either by the perl interpreter, or by nroff - the program is it's own manual page in other words. To provide a reverse example (of things clearly data which are interpreted as programs), this is the entire point between buffer overflow "cracking" tools. I think the danger of arguing that, because of the program chains and menus and other examples of `code' within the DVD content, the content should be treated as a program would be that the judge might decide that the menus and program chains are reverse-engineerable and not protected by 1201(a), but the audio/visual content is protected. In that case, the MPAA demonstrates that the menus are useless without the content and we are out of luck. But what if we were to argue that the line was so blurred that any distinction is inappropriate? I'm trying to come up with examples to back this up, but I'm fairly certain it can be done... Anyone? -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice P.S. Apologies if I sounded a little harsh there, Dana. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 11:41:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA24729 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:41:23 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24686 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:41:21 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA20846 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:42:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B2BC1D.EC7A1F47@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:41:01 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221230108.B28173@nacs.net> <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> <20000222084311.B707@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: > How does the "DVD language" compare? Are there additional features > that do not compare with html, ps or tex? Do you have a URL for > your first report? > Don't know if I'd call it a "language" per se. It's a spec. All DVD Video discs must conform to the spec in order to be read on a DVD Video player (whether hardware or software, stand-alone or part of a PC) Here's another excerpt - describing the three "layers" - physical, logical, and application - in the DVD Video spec: While the specifications for CD audio discs and DVD Video discs both define all three levels, DVD Video is unique in that not only the content but the application is defined. In CD audio, there is no program control other than that supplied by the CD audio player - start, stop, skip, shuffle, etc. - and the content is limited to a very specific type of digitized audio that is played back in a linear fashion, from the start of a song to the end. In DVD Video, navigation controls and viewer options are part of the application layer, along with the content, and these interactive features allow the user considerable control over how the content is displayed. In summary, the DVD Video format is an application specific version of read only DVD for feature length movies. Up to the application layer, it is identical to DVD ROM and DVD Audio. The ONLY thing that differentiates a DVD Video disc from another read only DVD format is the application layer. For DVD Video, the application layer is very clearly defined as to the type of video codec, audio compression, navigational commands, auxiliary files, and other data types it may contain. Only a DVD disc that conforms to these definitions will play on a DVD Video player. No. I don't have a URL. I don't think they ever published it online. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 11:57:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30868 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:57:30 -0500 Received: from francesco.stelvio.nl (francesco.stelvio.nl [195.169.54.67]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30864 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:57:29 -0500 X-Internal-ID: 3886FFAB000015CD Received: from passo.stelvio.nl (195.169.54.130) by francesco.stelvio.nl (NPlex 2.0.108) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; 22 Feb 2000 17:58:04 +0100 X-Internal-ID: 389AE85B00000B68 Received: from koek.net (195.169.54.131) by passo.stelvio.nl (NPlex 2.0.119) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:58:04 +0100 Message-ID: <38B2C023.1A76BD12@koek.net> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:58:11 +0100 From: Mark Koek X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > >> Again, my point is that the access provided by DeCSS is > >> non-circumventing access and is thereby not covered by the prohibition > >> against '-all- circumvention'. > > > >There is a legal "access control" mechanism - CSS - attached to DVD > >content. Non-circumventing access would, by definition, be working within > >CSS to gain access to underlying content. The only way to do this would > >be with a licensed key; DeCSS does not do this. > > A naive argument against this would be that the actual encryption keys are > stored on disc and that they were not protected to the degree demanded by > the DMCA wording. Nitpicking which does not stand up to a reasonable > challenge, of course. DeCSS uses a key to open a lock. Would you call opening a lock with a key "circumventing" it? There may be other stuff wrong with it, but I wouldn't call it circumvention. I'm opening it the way it was designed to be opened. I've even paid for the key - it's on the disc! The MPAA may not like what I can do once I'm inside. Some of the things I can do in there might even be illegal. But that doesn't mean I've circumvented the access control. "Licensed" player software restricts what I can do *once I'm inside* and DeCSS doesn't, but they give access in much the same way. Mark Koek From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 12:04:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01129 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:04:36 -0500 Received: from dial243.roadrunner.com (dial243.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.243]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01090 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:04:33 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial243.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01302 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:07:54 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:07:53 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Encryption Research Message-ID: <20000222100753.A1156@localhost> References: <20000222064940.22968.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000222064940.22968.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:49:40PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:49:40PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Under 1201(g)(4), there is an exception to the provisions in 1201(a)(2) > for "good faith" encryption research. Good faith is defined by the four > conditions of 1201(g)(2), and subject to three consideration "factors" > in (g)(3). [ ... ] > I think you can attack the (g)(2)(C) requirement for effort to obtain > authorization on the grounds that it can produce a chilling affect on > the reseach. What company would be happy about having it's access > control system cracked in the name of research. This restriction is > overly burdensome on the potential researcher. Perhaps we should refer to this as "registration" to engage in a protected activity? > Similarly, the (g)(3)(B) factor considering encryption education or > professional experience would seem to limit the right to engage in > research to a small subset of people. A new or rising encryption > investigator cannot be so excluded. Scientific inquiry is every persons > right - it's not the exclusive province of some guild of scientists > with resumes. In fact, the best way to learn to do original research is > to repeat the famous research of the past. > > Anyway, the upshot of it all is that the publication of a DeCSS > advances the progress of encryption science by providing to the public > a concrete, non-trivial, case study in cracking a non-trivial, but > flawed encryption system. The burdensome restrictions of 1201(g) are > not valid under the copyright clause, which subordinates the exclusive > rights of the author to the "progress of science". I would also add that (g)(3)(A) may also violate strict scrutiny: "... whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology ..." It seems that the test should be if it has _any_ redeming value, it is protected: "Fanny Hill" v. Massachusetts 383 U.S. (1966). "A book cannot be proscribed unless it is found to be _utterly_ without redeeming social value." [ Emphasis in original. ] (g)(3)(C) "whether the person provided the copyright owner of the work to which the technological measure is applied with notice..." is burdensom and may also qualify as compelled speech. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 12:10:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA02492 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:10:20 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA02489 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:10:18 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA30218 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:09:44 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:09:44 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000222120942.J28173@nacs.net> References: <20000221224416.C19640@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:54:58PM +0800, Darrell Horrocks wrote: > >From a devil's advocate perspective, I think that the plaintiff is much more > likely to use the following simple argument. > > 1) Establish DeCSS as a way of decrypting an encrypted work They must establish it as a way to decrypt *only* access-controlled works (or possibly *primarily* access-controlled works?). This is why CSS sucks in the first place, and the reason DVDCCA didn't choose to use better-tested cryptography currently in the public domain. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but it has been mentioned once or twice before, but something's nagging me about this aspect. Maybe that, as a techie here, a technology which is in itself just a generic stream (block?) cipher is somehow associated with circumventing access control? Is there anything plausible about these arguments: 1) A reverse-engineering effort is allowed, but distribution of the program is not. However, the algorithm is generic, and there's nothing preventing a user to applying CSS to another medium/protocol and therefore it can not be considered that it's *primary* purpose is anti-circumvention. (blah, I know. brainstorming) 2) More like, it stifles innovation to disallow the distribution (and therefore, the use, effectively) of a generic technology just because it so happens that the only (known) currently common use is circumvention. ???? I can shoot both of these down myself (from a legal perspective - from a self-regulating-Internet-techie perspective 2 is not unreasonable and actually agreed upon), but I'm hoping there's something useful in them for someone else. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 12:31:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08135 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:31:23 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08132 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:31:22 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA14506 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:32:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B2C7D2.6D607093@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:30:58 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221230108.B28173@nacs.net> <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> <20000222113626.I28173@nacs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > I think the danger of arguing that, because of the program chains and > menus and other examples of `code' within the DVD content, the content should > be treated as a program would be that the judge might decide that the menus > and program chains are reverse-engineerable and not protected by 1201(a), but > the audio/visual content is protected. In that case, the MPAA demonstrates > that the menus are useless without the content and we are out of luck. Ah, but the point is that the content is also useless (or nearly so) without the menus/navigation controls/commands/program chains. Besides, what's the difference between a a graphical, interactive menu on your screen and audio/visual content? Bits is bits. > But what if we were to argue that the line was so blurred that any distinction > is inappropriate? I'm trying to come up with examples to back this up, but > I'm fairly certain it can be done... Anyone? The Matrix is actually a very good example - it really pushes the envelope of the format with programming that alters the audio/visual experience of the content. It's different enough from the theater version and the VHS version - which can only be experienced sequentially - as to consititute an interactive, random-access program as opposed to an audio/visual work. Especially on a computer. What I'd like to know is if anyone has succeeded in reassembling a DVD title in its entirety (fully functional, with menus, subtitles, etc. intact) after using DeCSS to strip the CSS and copy the VOBs to a hard drive. The copyrighted "work" is the DVD title in its entirety. The disembodied VOB is just an excerpt. Unless you can put the whole thing together again.... PS. no offense taken. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 12:34:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA13203 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:34:51 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA13042 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:34:47 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA30370 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:34:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:34:13 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000222123412.K28173@nacs.net> References: <38B2C023.1A76BD12@koek.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38B2C023.1A76BD12@koek.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:58:11PM +0100, Mark Koek wrote: > Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > >> Again, my point is that the access provided by DeCSS is > > >> non-circumventing access and is thereby not covered by the prohibition > > >> against '-all- circumvention'. > > > > > >There is a legal "access control" mechanism - CSS - attached to DVD > > >content. Non-circumventing access would, by definition, be working within > > >CSS to gain access to underlying content. The only way to do this would > > >be with a licensed key; DeCSS does not do this. > > > > A naive argument against this would be that the actual encryption keys are > > stored on disc and that they were not protected to the degree demanded by > > the DMCA wording. Nitpicking which does not stand up to a reasonable > > challenge, of course. > > DeCSS uses a key to open a lock. Would you call opening a lock with a > key "circumventing" it? There may be other stuff wrong with it, but I > wouldn't call it circumvention. I'm opening it the way it was designed > to be opened. I've even paid for the key - it's on the disc! There is a title key. Unfortunately there is also a player key, and you haven't paid for a player (DeCSS currently uses a Xing's player key, I think). It was designed to be opened by an authorized player ... > > The MPAA may not like what I can do once I'm inside. Some of the things > I can do in there might even be illegal. But that doesn't mean I've > circumvented the access control. > > "Licensed" player software restricts what I can do *once I'm inside* and > DeCSS doesn't, but they give access in much the same way. > > Mark Koek -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 13:53:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09091 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:53:18 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09063 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:53:13 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12NJz4-000Rlk-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:24:30 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 22 Feb 100 19:24:29 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <38B2B711.2EDDC06B@cdpage.com> from "Dana Parker" at Feb 22, 0 09:19:29 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Sham Gardner wrote: > > Maybe it would be helpful to provide examples of interpreted languages such > > as BASIC. The code is meaningless to the processor, it provides > > instructions which are executed by a program (interpreter). It may or not be > > something of a stretch to call an MPEG player an interpreter for MPEG files, > > which after all contain instructions on colour which pixel should be when. > > Just in case it isn't clear: an MPEG player is NOT The same thing as a DVD Video > player. DVD Video files are not strictly MPEG 2 files. They are a multiplexed > mixture of code, audio, and video. I am aware of this, but if anything it strengthens my point. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 14:18:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA16756 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:18:20 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16753 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:18:18 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA30798 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:17:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:17:38 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000222141737.L28173@nacs.net> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221230108.B28173@nacs.net> <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> <20000222113626.I28173@nacs.net> <38B2C7D2.6D607093@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38B2C7D2.6D607093@cdpage.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:30:58AM -0700, Dana Parker wrote: > > What I'd like to know is if anyone has succeeded in reassembling a DVD title in > its entirety (fully functional, with menus, subtitles, etc. intact) after using > DeCSS to strip the CSS and copy the VOBs to a hard drive. The copyrighted "work" > is the DVD title in its entirety. The disembodied VOB is just an excerpt. Unless > you can put the whole thing together again.... >From what I understand, all the data streams have been extracted intact, and audio/video syncing was the last piece of development effort that was done before the injunction. The injunction is hindering our ability to produce the rest of the functionality. In this case, more so than your above reference, bits is bits. If we have people bright enough to disect and analize CSS, there is absolutely no way we couldn't figure out how to interpret the rest of the data. Summary: 1) I don't know if work has begun on this or not. 2) It would be a pretty unbelievable claim that the authors of the DVD tools were not interested in producing this functionality. 3) There is no way we couldn't do this successfully barring legal restraint. 4) I am highly doubtful that it has already been accomplished. 5) The DVD tools most certainly comprise a "work in progress". No one claims they are finished. > > PS. no offense taken. > Thanks. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 14:49:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA27264 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:49:42 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA27241 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:49:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 3746 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2000 19:45:36 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2000 19:45:36 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA21796; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:50:15 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:50:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200002221950.LAA21796@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >"Jason M. Felice" wrote: > >> I think the danger of arguing that, because of the program chains and >> menus and other examples of `code' within the DVD content, the content should >> be treated as a program would be that the judge might decide that the menus >> and program chains are reverse-engineerable and not protected by 1201(a), but >> the audio/visual content is protected. In that case, the MPAA demonstrates >> that the menus are useless without the content and we are out of luck. > >Ah, but the point is that the content is also useless (or nearly so) without the >menus/navigation controls/commands/program chains. Besides, what's the difference >between a a graphical, interactive menu on your screen and audio/visual content? >Bits is bits. It doesn't go both ways. I have viewed DVDs in the traditional manner. No Gimmicks, just the movie. Incidentally I have to agree with Rob. No demos. Not until we steer them out of their sandbox and empty it. >Dana J. Parker >Consultant >http://www.cdpage.com >Contributing editor/standards columnist >Emedia magazine >http://www.emediapro.net >DVD PRO Conference Chair >http://www.dvdpro.net >I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression >http://www.eff.org/cafe > >mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 15:09:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA00468 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:09:24 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA00356 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:09:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 5246 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2000 20:05:19 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2000 20:05:19 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA25107; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:09:57 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:09:57 -0800 Message-Id: <200002222009.MAA25107@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: nospam@eff.og Subject: Important Fwd to DVD lawyers: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The mailing list is dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu See openlaw.org for more info. Anyway, no demos. Considering Kaplan's demonstrated attitude and intent to favor the MPAA we need to step carefully no matter how right we think we are. The Title 17 provisions are NOT on our side. They are however vague enough to allow us to put a stop to the case. Also please let us know you read this. We've been over hundreds of different arguments and would rather not have the work go to waste. (Helps with morale.) Thanks, Rares (IANAL, but no sheep either.) greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 04:28:01PM -0600, Steven Barker wrote: >> >> Is the DMCA's ban on distributing such a device constitutional under the >> first ammendment and the copyright clause? (not sure what the best arguments >> are on this) >> >> Does DeCSS "circumvent" CSS, or is it's use covered under fair use or the >> DVD licence? (This is what is being discussed here.) > >Better question: is there such a thing as a fair use defense when it comes >to distributing anti-circumvention tech, rather than merely using it? Personally >I don't see how, since distribution doesn't involve infringement and fair use >is the argument that while an action may normally be infringement, in this >particular case it is not. > >I suspect that rather than arguing that distribution *is* fair use, it would >be easier to argue that it is *necessary* for fair use. Truth of the matter >is, making a special law for access control that doesn't require infringement >makes software like DeCSS inevitable and necessary. Without access control >circumvention tools, it becomes impossible to exercise fair use over copyrighted >media. The most you can do is use the media the way the owner wants it used. > >Section 12 forces individuals who want to exercise their legal fair use rights >to become federal criminals in order to do so. > > >> Well, so of it will be who's lawyers can get the most work done to supposrt >> their case. If us computer geeks can help them out a little bit by working out >> some of the arguments and reading over relevant cases, then they will be a >> little bit more prepared. > >I would really love to know if anyone from the EFF is even reading this. I'd >hate to think that we're just burning brain cells here while the EFF lawyers >are rehashing "reverse engineering is exempt" arguments. > >So how about it, EFF? Are you following this mailing list? > >If so, just rap on the window three times. We'll rap back twice to let >you know we heard you. If you are there, please: > >1. Show up with copies of Title 17 rather than the DMCA, since the DMCA is >the pre-enacted bill and Title 17 is the standing law. Make sure you all have >identical copies. > >2. Don't set up a demonstration of DeCSS or LiVid in court. Under Kaplan, that's >a no-win scenario. Be prepared for the possibility that the plaintiff may in >fact do this themselves, since it helps their case more than it does ours. > >3. Don't argue that DeCSS distribution is fair use or any other defense against >infringement, since this isn't about infringement. Instead argue that this law >makes federal criminals out of law-abiding citizens. > > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 15:09:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA00354 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:09:20 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA00351 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:09:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 23833 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Feb 2000 20:09:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20000222200945.23832.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:09:45 PST Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:09:45 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu My comments on the FAQ: - This is for the NY case - Keep the point of view issue-neutral, ie say "The MPAA argues X" instead of "X is true" Background Questions: 1. What part of the law does the MPAA file suit under 2. Where can I find the text of the law 3. What is the definition of 'circumvent a technological measure' 4. How is circumvention technology trafficking different from copyright infringement 5. Who is being sued 6. What exactly did the defendants do Fair Use: 1. Did the DMCA abolish 'fair use' 2. How do plaintiffs argue 'fair use' is not a defense 3. How do defendants argue 'fair use' is a defense Copyright Power: 1. What does the Constitution grant Congress the power to do 2. How do defendants argue that the DMCA exceeds Congress's powers 3. How do plaintiffs rebut this Free Speech: 1. How do defendants claim the DMCA violates free speech 2. How do plaintiffs claim free speech is not violated Reverse Engineering 1. Is reverse engineering of access control technology ever allowed 2. What is the text of the reverse engineering exception 3. How do plaintiffs argue against the reverse engineering exception 4. How do defendants argue for the reverse engineering exception __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 15:18:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02437 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:18:22 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02434 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:18:21 -0500 Received: from [38.32.11.169] (helo=ip169.bedford3.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12NLlo-0000AT-00; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:18:57 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:18:02 GMT Message-ID: <38b6eddf.21152831@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221230108.B28173@nacs.net> <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> <20000222084311.B707@localhost> <38b2b03c.5371242@mail.tiac.net> In-Reply-To: <38b2b03c.5371242@mail.tiac.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id PAA02435 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:59:24 GMT, I wrote: Whoops >DVD has 128 unique commands that operate in "Program Chains." ^^^^^^ Sorry, make that _possible_ commands, consisting of combinations of the six instructrions: Goto, Link, Jump, Compare, SetSystem, and Set. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 15:22:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04233 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:22:55 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04086 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:22:48 -0500 Received: from [38.32.11.169] (helo=ip169.bedford3.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12NLq5-0000Hy-00; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:23:22 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:22:22 GMT Message-ID: <38b7eeff.21440791@mail.tiac.net> References: <200002221950.LAA21796@ns1.filetron.com> In-Reply-To: <200002221950.LAA21796@ns1.filetron.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id PAA04231 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:50:15 -0800, Rares wrote: >>Ah, but the point is that the content is also useless (or nearly so) without the >>menus/navigation controls/commands/program chains. Besides, what's the difference >>between a a graphical, interactive menu on your screen and audio/visual content? >>Bits is bits. > >It doesn't go both ways. I have viewed DVDs in the traditional manner. No Gimmicks, just the movie. But that's only because the program was boring and VCR-like. It's still a program, akin to "hello world." __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 15:54:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12539 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:54:39 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12536 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:54:38 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA18668 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:55:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B2F77A.99271EA5@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:54:18 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221230108.B28173@nacs.net> <38B29854.CD50CBA2@cdpage.com> <20000222113626.I28173@nacs.net> <38B2C7D2.6D607093@cdpage.com> <20000222141737.L28173@nacs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > >From what I understand, all the data streams have been extracted intact, and > audio/video syncing was the last piece of development effort that was done > before the injunction. The injunction is hindering our ability to produce > the rest of the functionality. > > In this case, more so than your above reference, bits is bits. If we have > people bright enough to disect and analize CSS, there is absolutely no way > we couldn't figure out how to interpret the rest of the data. > > Summary: > 1) I don't know if work has begun on this or not. > 2) It would be a pretty unbelievable claim that the authors of the DVD tools > were not interested in producing this functionality. > 3) There is no way we couldn't do this successfully barring legal restraint. > 4) I am highly doubtful that it has already been accomplished. > 5) The DVD tools most certainly comprise a "work in progress". No one claims > they are finished. > OK, so not only can't you actually access DVD Video on a Linux system, you can't even really copy a DVD Video title. Where's the infringement? Where's the capability of infringement? You may have circumvented CSS (or not) but there's plenty of other things they could call copy protection or access control about DVD (like, the size, the format, the multiple audio channels). >From the Comments of the CCIA (http://cryptome.org/dmca-ccia.htm) "In this context, we note that at some point in the near future computer programs will be distributed on DVDs. Would reverse engineering CSS to permit these programs to run on Linux be permitted under the DMCA as enacted, or would the exception not apply because the decryption software would also allow the running of movies? To eliminate the possibility of this absurd result, reverse engineering for the purpose of permitting all forms interoperability -- and not just between computer software -- should be permitted." There's a good point and a bad one about this paragraph. The bad point is that CSS works only for DVD Video. You could make a DVD-ROM player - a device driver - without breaking CSS, but I still think you'd need a license from the Forum to make it. The good point is that increasing numbers of titles are not "pure" DVD Video, but are in fact DVD-ROMs or hybrids (I know, I said this before, bear with me). The "pure" DVD Video portions of these discs encrypted with CSS would not be accessible without an "authorized" player, or DeCCS (or a Linux player using it). The ROM portions would. But the DVD Forum and the CPTWG pushed hard for DVD Videos to be playable on computers, even though it meant that every DVD PC, operating system, MPEG 2 card, and DVD-ROM drive would be subject to region codes and CSS licensing, even if no one ever wanted to play a movie on that machine. Not everybody in the PC manufacturing world was real happy about this. (I wasn't - I fail to see why I should have to pay more for hardware or software, because the manufacturers have to pay more and work harder, because the MPAA assumes its customers are thieves and thinks it's everybody else's job to protect their property) It could well be argued that everything the DVD Forum and the MPAA set up to supposedly "deter" piracy (region codes and CSS) actually made it inevitable that piracy would flourish (and it does, but it's taking place in replication plants in third world countries run by organized crime, they don't need DeCSS, and the MPAA likes easier targets). I think there might be some merit in fleshing out the bits is bits theory. After all, isn't a Shockwave video a computer program? Toy Story and A Bug's Life are completely animated features created on computers - who says they're not computer programs? A Powerpoint presentation offers me less interactivity and functionality than a DVD movie, and that's pretty clearly a computer program. Multimedia CD-ROMs are computer programs, whether they contain video or audio or not. Why treat Hollywood movie video bits any different than any other bits? Don't know if this helps. I just needed to vent.;-) -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 15:59:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA15012 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:59:13 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA15009 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:59:12 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA20627 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:00:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B2F88B.A0F3443@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:58:51 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <200002221950.LAA21796@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: > It doesn't go both ways. I have viewed DVDs in the traditional manner. No Gimmicks, just the movie. Just because you didn't consciously interact with the program commands does not mean that the program and the commands aren't there. The movie doesn't play without the program. You can't view it without the program. The program tells the player to play the movie, even if you only play it straight through with no "gimmicks". From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 16:08:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA16846 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:08:12 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA16842 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:08:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 16837 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Feb 2000 21:08:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20000222210846.16836.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:08:46 PST Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:08:46 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Why do you say LiViD is? The interoperating programs are DeCSS > > and the CSS encryption program. The protected activity is exactly like > > one word processor reading another's files. FIle's are created by > > some program A and are read by program B (which might be the > > same as A or might be a watered down version). You look at B and > > create program C that can read program A's files. You have reverse > > engineered program B to create C which interoperates with A. > > Bryan, CSS isn't a program. It's an encryption method. It appears that 1201(f)(2) contains no text requiring that you know the correct name for the program that you are interoperating with. Why don't you respond to the original point that shows DeCSS fits the language of 1201(f)(2) instead of raising non-issues like program names. You are really quibbling here, especially because I didn't even refer to any program by the name CSS. 'CSS encryption program' DESCRIBES (if it doesn't name) the program used by the DVD suppliers that implements the CSS encryption method. Also, how do we know that the program used is not called CSS? This would be a reasonable name, because there is no need to discriminate between the encryption program and the encryption algorithm here. If you have a citation that shows the CSS encryption program used to create the encrypted content actually has a different name, please supply it. Until I learn the actual name of this program, I will continue to describe it as 'the CSS encryption progam' since this is appropriate descriptive language. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 16:25:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA22056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:25:27 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA22053 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:25:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 10539 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Feb 2000 21:25:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:25:58 PST Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:25:58 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu If these are definitely public domain, then this is a very strong point. Congress certainly has no authority to "build a moat filled with litigators" around public domain content. --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > (a) Chaplin on DVD. Guess what? Region 1 encoded. Price fixing may > just be their undoing. > > > (b) Nosferatu on DVD. Guess what? Region 1 encoded. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 17:26:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06739 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:26:05 -0500 Received: from mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (ftp1.imagine-sw.com [206.232.17.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06735 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:26:04 -0500 Received: from metermaid.imagine_ny.com (metermaid [192.9.201.29]) by mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA20232 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:29:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from imagine-sw.com by metermaid.imagine_ny.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15602; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:26:06 -0500 Message-ID: <38B30CFD.F61F1FC9@imagine-sw.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:26:05 -0500 From: Francisco Figueirido Organization: Imagine Software, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DVD Discussion Subject: [dvd-discuss] just my 2 cents (in whatever currency is most devalued today:-) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I have been following this discussion for a while and have seen several comments revolving around the meaning of `software.' The one I can remember now (sorry, I seem to have deleted by mistake the message) was something like: `software is a bunch of instructions.' I think this is a rather naive definition, in that it is all-encompasing. Under this definition, ANYTHING that can be read by a computer would be software. After all, you can always write a program that performs different operations based on the bits it reads. Although I am not a lawyer, I doubt Congress had such an encompasing definition in mind. On the other hand, the aforementioned comment clearly points out the blurring line between code and data (no matter what CPU builders tell you :-). Does anybody know of a definition that would be commonly used by lawyers? Is there any? Or are they just talking on empty air (I very much doubt it)? Or maybe a definition is not that important, as the intent of the law is more important than its letter (or something like that seems to have stuck to my naive brain cells). -- Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com 400 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10017 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 17:26:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07036 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:26:56 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA07033 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:26:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 18018 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Feb 2000 22:27:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20000222222732.18017.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:27:32 PST Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:27:32 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Dana Parker wrote: > > Unfortunately, as has been said over and over again, DVD films ain't > > programs. Neither is CSS. Reading the above law literally, this > > exemption only applies to making programs interoperative with other > > programs, not with particular types of media. > > > > Excuse me. I'm not so sure it's been established that DVD films > aren't programs. A few years ago, I did a white paper for a Canadian law > firm to establish, for taxation purposes, that DVD films ARE programs - > actually, the term was software as opposed to systems software. Can anybody dig up a similar finding in US law where 'programs' where interpreted to include their data files? The "programs only" interpretation on 1201(f) seems to me to be equivalent to three things: A) hardware devices are out of scope B) the exception doesn't provide a copyright licence to anything C) the exception is void if it results in copyright infringement A computer program is a collection of commands and data that when executed cause the computer to produce a well-defined result. Computer scientists who study the language LISP are often surprised by the realization that the difference between a command and data is completely illusory. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 17:31:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA08843 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:31:22 -0500 Received: from mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (ftp1.imagine-sw.com [206.232.17.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA08839 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:31:21 -0500 Received: from metermaid.imagine_ny.com (metermaid [192.9.201.29]) by mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA20308 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:35:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from imagine-sw.com by metermaid.imagine_ny.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15607; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:31:22 -0500 Message-ID: <38B30E3A.62FA05A8@imagine-sw.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:31:22 -0500 From: Francisco Figueirido Organization: Imagine Software, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > >For example program A&B could be MS Word and we make Star-Office to > >read .doc files. Or it could be CSS and we make DeCSS to read .vob > >files. > > CSS is generic encryption. Why not construct a ToCSS freeware implementation > to demonstrate this point - haha.doc.css, you know? > > Also, is there a player out there which cannot handle non-CSS DVD's? That > would prove that there is no alternative to using CSS and, in conjunction > with a PD distribution of just about anything, support the overbreadth > arguments made elsewhere on the list. > There are at least several examples of lack of support for hardware-based acceleration for MPEG2 decoding due, presumably, to fear of retaliation by the MPAA and friends (case in mind: ask Sigma Designs whether they would support Dxr3-based cards on Linux). This by itself doesn't make much of a case, as I can't see any legal way of forcing a vendor to support Linux (and Sigma Designs seems committed to it, by the way). -- Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com 400 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10017 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 18:11:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA02624 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:11:43 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA02621 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:11:42 -0500 Received: (qmail 21437 invoked by uid 502); 22 Feb 2000 23:16:10 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:16:10 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000222181610.C20634@linuxpower.org> References: <20000222025034.18353.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000222025034.18353.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:50:34PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:50:34PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > "Attached" was my word and not intended as a legal term. The fact > > remains that CSS is the access control mechanism that was chosen > > here. That access control mechanism is currently legal and Section 12 > > applies. > > You seem to be pretty good at pointing out things that are not in > dispute :-] I still content that DeCSS gives access-with-authority past > the access control system. And I'm still waiting for you to provide a legal definition for the word "authority". The best you've done so far is make up your own definition. Show me a legal reference that defines "authority" in the way you describe and I will happily concede the point. > > Title 17, Section 1201(a)(3)(A): > > > > "(A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to > > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or > > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a > > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright > > owner" > > > > The word "allowed" never enters it. It's about "authority", and if > > you wish to argue that by not explicitly stating on the outside of a > > DVD that playing a DVD on a non-CSS player is not an authorized use, > > that they're a priori giving authorization, then fine. > > > But I think you're very wrong. The problem here is that you assume > > that "authority" begins and ends with "Authorized for home use only"; > > > if that were the case, most of copyright law would be unnecessary. I > > > think you're taking a very simplistic and naive approach to a > > complicated topic. > > It's a simple approach, but not a simplistic one. I would summarize it > as "Say exactly what you mean when writing that legal stuff on your > product, and don't cry 'boo-hoo' with expensive lawyers if somebody > does something you didn't think about that doesn't violate it." Sounds good. Personally, I think that *should* be the case. I also think in reality it isn't. You're doing a lot of "this is the way common sense says it should be, therefore this is the way it is" kind of thinking here. There is a wonderful saying: "Ignorance of the law is no defense." To the best of my knowledge, an owner of a copyright doesn't actually have to post anything on the package - the package is still covered under copyright law. Show me where in Title 17 it says, "If the owner does not state a restriction along with the copyright notice, then this restriction is not enforceable under law." Bet you can't. > > Many DVD cases - for example, "The Terminator" distrbuted by Image > > Entertainment, which I have here in front of me - say nowhere on the > > outside of the case that you can't make copies for friends. Does > > this then make it legal to do so? > > They do say it in two ways. The first way is when they put the > copyright symbol and thereby alert the customer to the company's > exclusive rights under copyright law (statutory and precedent), which, > as is well known, do not, by default, allow sale-depriving copying as > you describe. Second, in the language following the copyright, as you > note below, it says "All other rights are retained...", which makes it > explicit that there is no grant for what you describe, though a > copyright owner could insert language here to waive this right, for > example, as is done in the GPL licence. "As is well known". Hmm. To the best of my knowledge, the "(c)" symbol only publicly states that the copyright has been registered with the Library of Congress. It neither makes something copyrighted nor defines the license rights given under that copyright. The idea that merely by placing a copyright symbol on a package, that the customer is automatically alerted to their rights under that copyright is known as a priori thinking; this is the idea that you simply "know" before and without actually going to find out. This is sometimes called "common sense". You can claim that a copyright notice communicates anything you want: willingness to pursue legal recourse in the case of infringement, statement of ownership of content, whatever. But the reality of the situation is that all the "(c)" symbol does is announce registration of copyright. The law itself defines what protections the government will provide. It's a subtle point but a very real one. I would of course be open to citation stating that transfer of rights under copyright law begins and ends with copyright notices. > > "WARNING: The program contained in this DVD is authorized for home > use > > only. All other rights are retained by the copyright proprietor. > The > > FBI investigates allegations of copyright infringement, and federal > > law provides severe criminal and civil penalties for those found to > be > > in violation." > > > Kinda vague, eh? "All other rights" leaves a lot of wiggle room. > > Perhaps, but not enough wiggle room to try to reclaim the 'home use' > granted by the previous sentence. > > I'm sure there are cases that have passed judgement over the extent to > which copyright notices bind the parties. I doubt they are Supreme > Court cases. I will try to find something. I doubt that any precedent > speaks directly to whether 'home viewing' or 'home use' includes > decryption in the post DMCA era. Any citation would be better than this "I believe it, so that settles it" argument you've been presenting so far. Honestly, I would love for this "home viewing only" reasoning to be correct and verifiable with law. But all you've shown so far is a priori thinking and legal assumption. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 18:14:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA04572 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:14:50 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA04569 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:14:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 21443 invoked by uid 502); 22 Feb 2000 23:19:18 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:19:18 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Speech is irrelevant: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). Message-ID: <20000222181918.D20634@linuxpower.org> References: <200002220309.TAB27836@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002220309.TAB27836@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 07:09:42PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 07:09:42PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Look it isn't that hard. It is illegal to copy VHS tapes in New York but it is legal to sell them. > Are you sure about this? I'm fairly sure that selling bootleg VHS tapes is illegal almost anywhere in the world. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 18:15:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA04845 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:15:27 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA04830 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:15:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 21705 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Feb 2000 23:16:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000222231602.21704.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:16:02 PST Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:16:02 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- sam th wrote: > Unfortunately, although it is true that the EFF did not have adequate > preparation time, that does not mean that they would have come up > with some miraculous argument, given a few more days. I don't think it would take a miraculous arguement. Certainly an arguement that actually existed would be better than what we had. One that is merely better than the weak one that carried the point would be sufficient. > I am not sure what you mean by ambigous here. The cite I provided > states that the exception was not meant to apply to circumvention of > access controls on audio-visual products. That seems very > non-ambigous on refering to DVDs. It's ambiguous in it's reference to the law, since 1201(f)(1) is consistent with the statement, but the quote cannot be reconciled with the plain text of 1201(f)(2). I think the author has clearly made a mistake in interpretation of the law. > I am not sure where "data files" got brought in. Put your DVD movie in your drive and type 'ls'. If you're on win32 type 'dir'. You'll see (you guessed it) a listing of files. If you really want to have a thrill type 'cat *.vob' - Wow, data in files. > The real problem here is a misunderstanding of the intention of 1201(f). > This is intended to allow reverse engineering of access control that > prevent access to computer programs. A good example of this is copy > protection software for a game. If you needed to defeat that copy > protection to make the game work on linux, then 1201(f) would apply > to you. This doesn't make any sense at all. Copy protection is not the subject matter of 1201 at all, and even if it was, defeating copy protection has little bearing on making the game "work on linux". Your statements about allowing RE that prevents access to computer programs DO reflect the law in 1201(f)(1), but do not resemble in any way 1201(f)(2). > But this is not the only test you must meet. You must also be doing > this reverse engineering "for the purpose of enabling interoperability of > an independtly created computer program with other programs". Yes. Thank you for quoting the law. Now we can see. The independently created program is DeCSS. The "other programs" are the programs used to create the encrypted content on the DVD in the .vob files. It is exactly like star office reading word documents. DeCSS interoperates when it successfully reads files made by the other and displays the output in the same way as the replaced program (eg the Xing player). > Allow me to attempt to explain with some ASCII art: << nice ascii art omitted >> You illustrate the situation of 1201(f)(1). 1201(f)(2) is more general. > And if you are trying to achieve interoperability between 2 "computer > programs" - a category that Congress did not intend DVD's to fall > into. Congress passed language that allows development and distribution of programs that interoperate with others by passing the access controls of these as long as you don't commit a copyright infringement by doing so. The interoperability here is between the programs that write the .vob files and the programs that read the .vob files. Again, it is exactly the same as star office reading .doc files. DeCSS reads the CSS encryption program's output files. All counter's to this reasoning depend on some dubious quote from legislative history that seems to correctly interpret 1201(f)(1) only. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 18:18:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06829 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:18:40 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA06826 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:18:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 21451 invoked by uid 502); 22 Feb 2000 23:23:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:23:05 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000222182305.E20634@linuxpower.org> References: <20000218183304.22356.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221091017.S11768@linuxpower.org> <200002211914.OAA30649@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000221175719.M11768@linuxpower.org> <38B1C82E.5EB093BD@cdpage.com> <20000221224851.D19640@linuxpower.org> <38B20C70.F3D2CB5F@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38B20C70.F3D2CB5F@cdpage.com>; from Dana Parker on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:11:28PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:11:28PM -0700, Dana Parker wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > Point taken. And a good point it is. Thank you for backing up your assertions > > as clearly as you have here; I appreciate it. > > Great, I thought I'd been filtered. The document itself goes into much more detail. > Let me know if you want it. I think I would. I believe it would make good reading. > > I assume you're the same Dana Parker who wrote the "An Agreement At Last?" > > article in 1996 for Tape/Disc Business Magazine that I've been quoting lately, eh? > > Yeah, but I thought I wrote it for Emedia (or CD-ROM Professional as it was known back > then). I was writing for both in '96. I wrote a number of articles, columns, and news > stories on CSS and the whole copy protection fiasco. I warned about the DMCA and what > it would do to fair use; but it's no fun to be able to say I told you so. I came across the article in a web-based archive of T&DBM about a month ago. Someone had posted the URL in the feedback message area over at OpenDVD.org. It was a very good article - a good insight into the thinking at the time. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 18:34:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA17107 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:34:20 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA17104 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:34:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 21459 invoked by uid 502); 22 Feb 2000 23:38:47 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:38:47 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000222183847.F20634@linuxpower.org> References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221172351.K11768@linuxpower.org> <00022117405700.09344@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221224416.C19640@linuxpower.org> <20000221232615.C28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000221232615.C28173@nacs.net>; from Jason M. Felice on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:26:15PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:26:15PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:44:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > So far I see two possible points of attack: > > > > 1. In certain cases - such as DeCSS - access circumvention technology is necessary > > to exercise fair use rights over material. Since in these cases access circumvention > > tech actually has a legal application, it cannot be prohibited by law. Or something > > to that effect. > > Devil's advocate: > > - Circumventing access control, by reasoning of the DMCA, doesn't have a legal > application. > Counter-argument: ??? This is the kind of argument that we make when we're challenging Section 12 itself. A point could be made here that by enforcing the DMCA the government presumes guilt from the possibility of guilt and therefore is a violation of due process. If the DMCA stands and is not challenged, there is no counter-argument. > > > > > 2. There is a potential loophole in the RE clause of 1201, and it has to do with > > "authority". The RE clause defines circumvention as getting to the content, past > > the access control, without the "authority" of the copyright owner. We need to > > find out exactly what "authority" means in a legal sense. If we can show that the > > copyright owner's "authority" doesn't extend to preventing fair use, then we may > > be able to show that DeCSS is not circumvention tech at all as defined by 1201. > > > > Devil's advocate: > > - Fair use isn't prevented, as consumers can make copies for home viewing with > a VCR. We can even play DVDs under Linux - let me demonstrate this with a > full blown, consumer-grade DVD player with an analog output and a video > capture card. When I first bought my Panasonic DVD player, I had a small 13-inch 1979 television my kid brother had snagged back in his surplus warehouse days. It started life as a system monitor over at NASA. Anyway, I hooked up the coaxial and got a scrambled picture when I played my Matrix DVD. It took me a bit to figure out why. Macrovision. At least with hardware players, there is circuitry in place to prevent home users from making VCR copies of DVD's. Signal comes out scrambled. I'm willing to bet you'd get the same thing pumping it into a VC card. > - Further, you can't make one single exception where circumvention is plausible, > since the first exception renders the entire access control method useless. > - Like the judge should care. Or should he? Then the fact that exemptions exist at all pretty much kills the legitimacy of 1201, since the exemptions cannot practically be taken without rendering the entire law useless. It's a bad law - challenge it. I think perhaps our best bet here is trying to locate a legal reference defining "authority" in the sense that it is used in 1201 to define circumvention. If we can show that DVD decryption via DeCSS does not fall within the copyright owner's copyright authority, then DeCSS is not a circumvention device as defined by 1201. I *think* that's what Bryan is trying to get at in another thread. I just wish he could get past his pet beliefs and cite some law to back them up. > I am NOT a lawyer, but I have been following this for some time now and I > think we have the best arguments to date. I think they're evolving nicely. Conflict has a way of doing that. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 18:48:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24851 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:48:12 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA24827 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:48:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 21469 invoked by uid 502); 22 Feb 2000 23:52:39 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:52:39 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000222185239.G20634@linuxpower.org> References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <00022112504400.08836@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221172351.K11768@linuxpower.org> <00022117405700.09344@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <20000221224416.C19640@linuxpower.org> <20000221232615.C28173@nacs.net> <20000221205629.W4856@cty-alum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000221205629.W4856@cty-alum.org>; from Seth David Schoen on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:56:29PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:56:29PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Jason M. Felice writes: > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:44:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > > So far I see two possible points of attack: > > > > > > 1. In certain cases - such as DeCSS - access circumvention technology is necessary > > > to exercise fair use rights over material. Since in these cases access circumvention > > > tech actually has a legal application, it cannot be prohibited by law. Or something > > > to that effect. > > Things with a legal application are prohibited by law all the time. > > To use examples from earlier on this list -- guns. Lock picks. > > Others: Cuban cigars, marijuana, cocaine. > > To pursue the point: you might have a legal right to do something (in that > the act itself was not proscribed by law), yet all of the feasible means of > doing it might happen to be illegal, possibly for other reasons, or > possibly to allow the legal act to be effectively prohibited indirectly, > without causing so much political controversy. First off, there is a difference between something being illegal and something being controlled. Guns and lock picks fall under this category, because there is a recognition that these have legal applications. Cuban cigars are import/export political issues. I'd be curious when the last time was that someone was in court for possessing Cubans, rather than being busted for smuggling them. Drugs for the most part are illegal because courts haven't found that they *do* have legal applications. The ones that do in certain situations - marijuana for glaucoma, for example - are controlled by region and are not outright illegal on a federal level. Some types of guns are illegal for this same reason - that the courts have not found a legitimate legal application. Fully automatic rifles, for example. There are still people arguing that a fully automatic Uzi is a hunting weapon. A general rule of thumb in the laws I've read has been, if there is a legitimate legal application, then that legality has to be honored. > > > 2. There is a potential loophole in the RE clause of 1201, and it has to do with > > > "authority". The RE clause defines circumvention as getting to the content, past > > > the access control, without the "authority" of the copyright owner. We need to > > > find out exactly what "authority" means in a legal sense. If we can show that the > > > copyright owner's "authority" doesn't extend to preventing fair use, then we may > > > be able to show that DeCSS is not circumvention tech at all as defined by 1201. > > Now we have some bizarre word games with 1201. I read the anticircumvention > rules as being conditions on the intent of the access control measure, not > the intent of the circumventor. Am I mistaken to read them this way? Dunno. But the definition of "circumvention" in 1201 defines it as being dependent on the "authority" of the copyright owner. If the "authority" does not apply, or if we can show that DeCSS falls under this "authority", then by legal definition DeCSS doesn't fit the criteria of being an access-control circumvention device and this case is over. No word games. Just reading it literally. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 19:02:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA29081 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:02:31 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA29078 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:02:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 21518 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 00:06:59 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:06:59 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Message-ID: <20000222190659.H20634@linuxpower.org> References: <20000222054002.7301.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000222054002.7301.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:40:02PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:40:02PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > What should we do, roll over and die because we lost the preliminary > injunction. No, we have to forcefully advocate our position with the > idea that we can change the judges first impression. If he's truly > formed a solid opinion without hearing both sides present their cases, > then he's a bad judge. Even if he has, this case will be appealed and > the circuit court will get to hear the arguement again. Actually, what we have to do is cut this emotionalistic crap, stop acting like whining techies and start acting like legal citizens. We can "forcefully advocate our position" until we're blue in the face, it won't impress Kaplan or anyone else. What we need to do is reevaluate our position and start developing real strategy. Just declaring yourself right doesn't cut it in court. > Really. Care to support your arguement? You provided a quote which > doesn't speak to the question of whether a data file is a considered > part of the program. I read your quote and the text of the law as > saying that the reverse engineering exception doesn't apply if using it > would result in copyright infringement. You may engineer a computer > program replacement, but by doing so you don't magically get a > copyright licence. Bryan, forgive me if I'm misreading this, but it's unclear. Are you stating that copyright protection is not magicalily given to the program replacement? If so, you're wrong. Any written work is automatically under copyright in the United States. Registering it with the Library of Congress just makes it easier to prove in court; you can do the same thing by mailing yourself a certified copy of the work and putting the unopened package in a safety deposit box. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 19:27:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA03309 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:27:44 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA03306 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:27:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 21531 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 00:32:11 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:32:11 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000222193211.I20634@linuxpower.org> References: <20000222210846.16836.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000222210846.16836.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:08:46PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:08:46PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > Why do you say LiViD is? The interoperating programs are DeCSS > > > and the CSS encryption program. The protected activity is exactly > like > > one word processor reading another's files. FIle's are > created by > > > some program A and are read by program B (which might be the > > > same as A or might be a watered down version). You look at B and > > > create program C that can read program A's files. You have reverse > > > engineered program B to create C which interoperates with A. > > > > Bryan, CSS isn't a program. It's an encryption method. > > It appears that 1201(f)(2) contains no text requiring that you know the > correct name for the program that you are interoperating with. Why > don't you respond to the original point that shows DeCSS fits the > language of 1201(f)(2) instead of raising non-issues like program > names. Who said anything about program names? I'm making the distinction between the Xing player, DeCSS, the underlying multimedia programmming and the scrambling method that is known as CSS. Which one are *you* calling CSS? > You are really quibbling here, especially because I didn't even refer > to any program by the name CSS. 'CSS encryption program' DESCRIBES (if > it doesn't name) the program used by the DVD suppliers that implements > the CSS encryption method. And you're rationalizing, because you have your little pet theory and can't let go of it. In order to hold onto that theory, you're either intentionally or unintentionally trying to blur the lines and confuse the technical aspects of this case. One of the ways you're doing this is by claiming that the RE exemption applies because it was done to achieve interoperability between LiViD and CSS. When it is pointed out to you that "CSS" - the scrambling method as defined in court - probably does not meet the "program" criteria (which is clearly spelled out in 1201) you start playing word games. Bryan, you've made a few good points here. But you're not stating them clearly and you're not backing them up, and what you *are* backing up you're lacing with assumptions and rationalizations. You're feeling more than you're thinking. It makes it difficult to take any of what you say seriously. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris P.S. - I'm not trying to be rude here, and I have nothing personal against you, Bryan. We're really on the same side here. You've made a few good points, one of which - the copyright "authority" issue - I think is one of the better points made in this forum. But please stop emoting and inventing new tangents like "how do you know what the program name is?" just to assuage your ego. This case means more than either your ego or mine. :) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 19:47:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA08907 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:47:43 -0500 Received: from dial209.roadrunner.com (dial209.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.209]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA08828 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:47:40 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial209.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03082 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:51:02 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:51:01 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000222175101.A2997@localhost> References: <20000222025034.18353.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000222181610.C20634@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000222181610.C20634@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:16:10PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:16:10PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:50:34PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > "Attached" was my word and not intended as a legal term. The fact > > > remains that CSS is the access control mechanism that was chosen > > > here. That access control mechanism is currently legal and Section 12 > > > applies. > > > > You seem to be pretty good at pointing out things that are not in > > dispute :-] I still content that DeCSS gives access-with-authority past > > the access control system. > > And I'm still waiting for you to provide a legal definition for the > word "authority". The best you've done so far is make up your own > definition. Show me a legal reference that defines "authority" in the > way you describe and I will happily concede the point. I too noticed that "authority" is not defined in 1201. It is possible that we've got a vagueness problem here with the law. However: (i) The word "authorize" is used in 106 in reference to public performance, 106(4). Private performance is exempt from regulation by 106. (ii) 1201(c) uses the words "infringement" right next to "fair use". Fair use includes private performance. (iii) 1201(f,j,etc.) use the word "infringement" 7 times. At least some parts of 1201 seem to think they derive from the copyright clause, even if "access" circumvention is a de novo offense. Of course, that rapidly leads to an apparent contradiction with 1201(b). I can't resolve that one in all circumstances, except to say that Congress blew it. To paraphrase Doug Hudson, "can Congress take with one hand, what they give with another?" I think there are additional issues with 1201(b), but we can talk about those later if you are interested. I'm trying to keep my post focussed. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 19:53:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA11251 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:53:54 -0500 Received: from fb00.eng00.mindspring.net (fb00.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.200.31]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA11248 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:53:54 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniiek.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.73.212]) by fb00.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA17501 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:54:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002230054.TAA17501@fb00.eng00.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:48:13 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: Important Fwd to DVD lawyers: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) In-Reply-To: <200002222009.MAA25107@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bear in mind that EFF attorneys are prohibited from disclosing the confidential affairs of clients -- those named defendants who have formally agreed to have specific attorneys represent them (EFF is not authorized to practice law, only individuals are). Attorneys can be severely sanctioned for disclosure. Defendants may disclose whatever they wish, and may or may not heed the advice of counsel on this. Moreover, no sage attorney is going to reveal in a public forum what the case strategy is, except whatever might demonize the opposition or boost client's angelicism. So don't expect defendant attorneys to reveal what they are doing in either the California or New York cases except, perhaps, the most vague generalities, and only then with extreme care. That said, it's worth remembering that no law is absolute, nor its any neutral. That is what suits and arguments and judges squabble about. Even law-abiding is not neutral. Some of the most legendary rulings have been those that defied conventional wisdom of what the law said and how it should be obeyed. To be sure, some ruling seem immanently sane to us, others clearly nuts, but that depends on which side of the law you find yourself. Wondrously, a wizard attorney can be the sole advocate, against the world, and still win a seemingly impossibly lost case. As with scientists who go against the world's absolute certainty of what reality really is. Sure a few lawyers and scientists get burned at the stake for such stupidity, but, hey, that's why they're venerated. Take Dario Fo, a comedian who makes mincemeat of authorities, gets repeatedly thrown in jail for ridiculing judges and officials, and then gets hammered with a Nobel Prize once the world catches on to his genius, and, not to forget the most important feature, his courage to go where the rest of are afraid to tread. Final example to remember is the Federal Judge Hoffman who handled the Chicago 8 case in the 60s. The defendants drove hims nuts, rather revealed his insanity, despite their attorneys pleading with them to behave. Eventually, the attorneys followed the defendants leadership once Judge Hoffman turned on them for failing to control the clients. No need to worry about offending Judge Kaplan, he's asking for it, probably wants the challenge. Don't you see that he's bored shitless with endless corporate bullshit cases. Why else write one of the world's longest preliminary injunction rulings if not to say, hey, world, listen up, I'm not merely a potted plant yodeling "cocksucker." Lewis relished saying it folks, you had to be there to see his eye-roll at the women. Like Hoffman in Chicago, like Judge Judy. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 20:25:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21889 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:25:14 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21886 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:25:13 -0500 Received: from [38.32.79.229] (helo=ip229.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12NQYn-0003lX-00; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:25:50 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:24:47 GMT Message-ID: <38bb360f.39635933@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000222025034.18353.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000222181610.C20634@linuxpower.org> <20000222175101.A2997@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20000222175101.A2997@localhost> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id UAA21887 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:51:01 -0700, Paul wrote: >> And I'm still waiting for you to provide a legal definition for the >> word "authority". The best you've done so far is make up your own >> definition. Show me a legal reference that defines "authority" in the >> way you describe and I will happily concede the point. > >I too noticed that "authority" is not defined in 1201. It is possible >that we've got a vagueness problem here with the law. However: > >(i) The word "authorize" is used in 106 in reference to public >performance, 106(4). Private performance is exempt from regulation >by 106. > >(ii) 1201(c) uses the words "infringement" right next to "fair use". >Fair use includes private performance. > >(iii) 1201(f,j,etc.) use the word "infringement" 7 times. At least >some parts of 1201 seem to think they derive from the copyright clause, >even if "access" circumvention is a de novo offense. > >Of course, that rapidly leads to an apparent contradiction with 1201(b). >I can't resolve that one in all circumstances, except to say that Congress >blew it. To paraphrase Doug Hudson, "can Congress take with one hand, >what they give with another?" I think there are additional issues with >1201(b), but we can talk about those later if you are interested. I'm >trying to keep my post focussed. > Is there a case to made that these terms need to be explicated in detail on the outside of the shrink wrap? Here we are pawing through the code and we can't figure it out. What about the hapless consumer? __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 21:01:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA00342 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:01:14 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA00338 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:01:13 -0500 Received: from [38.32.79.229] (helo=ip229.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12NR7d-0004zq-00; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:01:50 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:00:45 GMT Message-ID: <38bc3c4f.41235539@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000222025034.18353.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000222181610.C20634@linuxpower.org> <20000222175101.A2997@localhost> <38bb360f.39635933@mail.tiac.net> In-Reply-To: <38bb360f.39635933@mail.tiac.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id VAA00339 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:24:47 GMT, I wrote: Paul wrote: >>I too noticed that "authority" is not defined in 1201. It is possible >>that we've got a vagueness problem here with the law. However: >> >>(i) The word "authorize" is used in 106 in reference to public >>performance, 106(4). Private performance is exempt from regulation >>by 106. >Is there a case to made that these terms need to be explicated in detail on the >outside of the shrink wrap? Here we are pawing through the code and we >can't figure it out. What about the hapless consumer? Or, more relevantly, how does one know if a player is authorized? I have an All In Wonder card on my wintel box that can play DVDs. I have no idea if this player is authorized or if ATI paid for a license. Nor do I know if any of my hardware is "authorized." Is this a responsibility of the FCC, or the FTC? What if I'm a reseller? How do I protect myself? What about the Apex standalone player I read about? I can't even find their Web site. Who do I ask to find out if they paid for their CSS license--the Circuit City salesperson? __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 21:35:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09982 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:35:33 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA09979 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:35:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 21762 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 02:39:47 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:39:47 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000222213947.J20634@linuxpower.org> References: <20000222025034.18353.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000222181610.C20634@linuxpower.org> <20000222175101.A2997@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000222175101.A2997@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:51:01PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:51:01PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:16:10PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:50:34PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > "Attached" was my word and not intended as a legal term. The fact > > > > remains that CSS is the access control mechanism that was chosen > > > > here. That access control mechanism is currently legal and Section 12 > > > > applies. > > > > > > You seem to be pretty good at pointing out things that are not in > > > dispute :-] I still content that DeCSS gives access-with-authority past > > > the access control system. > > > > And I'm still waiting for you to provide a legal definition for the > > word "authority". The best you've done so far is make up your own > > definition. Show me a legal reference that defines "authority" in the > > way you describe and I will happily concede the point. > > I too noticed that "authority" is not defined in 1201. It is possible > that we've got a vagueness problem here with the law. However: > > (i) The word "authorize" is used in 106 in reference to public > performance, 106(4). Private performance is exempt from regulation > by 106. Just looked it up. Something even more interesting is the "Historical and Revision Notes", House Report 94-1476, attached to 106. You can look it up at http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm. (This is the source I'm using for U.S. Code references.) Unfortunately, the closest it gets to defining "authority" seems to be this: "The exclusive rights accorded to a copyright owner under section 106 are ''to do and to authorize'' any of the activities specified in the five numbered clauses. Use of the phrase ''to authorize'' is intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of contributory infringers. For example, a person who lawfully acquires an authorized copy of a motion picture would be an infringer if he or she engages in the business of renting it to others for purposes of unauthorized public performance." Tricky, slippery stuff indeed. At the same time, 106 may not even apply since they're not suing for infringement. Jesus, is this a bad law; it gets worse every day. > (ii) 1201(c) uses the words "infringement" right next to "fair use". > Fair use includes private performance. More importantly, private performance is outside of the copyright rights as generally defined in 106. 106 doesn't seem to grant the copyright holder the authority to muck about with private performance. Paul, if you want to start harping on the "right to read" now, this is the time to do it. :) I suppose if "reading" is synonymous with private performance, while there isn't an explicit right there, there is no explicit right to control it, either. You know, the more I read 1201, the more I think 1201a1 is a smoke screen and a distraction for 1201a2. 1201a1 talks about fair use, infringement, and the Librarian of Congress, but 1201a2 doesn't talk about any of that. It just talks about access and control and circumvention. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 21:49:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA14254 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:49:24 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA14251 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:49:24 -0500 Received: (qmail 24289 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 02:50:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223025001.24288.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:50:01 PST Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:50:01 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > And I'm still waiting for you to provide a legal definition for the > word "authority". The best you've done so far is make up your own > definition. Show me a legal reference that defines "authority" in > the way you describe and I will happily concede the point. Authority is permission. Reference: http://dictionary.law.com/definition.asp?selected=2478&bold=|||| I really don't see any other way to interpret the copyright notice. It grants you permission for home viewing, so you view with the authority of the copyright holder. You are not circumventing = access-without-authority, but rather access-with-authority. This is pretty straight forward stuff. > > It's a simple approach, but not a simplistic one. I would summarize it > > as "Say exactly what you mean when writing that legal stuff on your > > product, and don't cry 'boo-hoo' with expensive lawyers if somebody > > does something you didn't think about that doesn't violate it." > Sounds good. Personally, I think that *should* be the case. I also > think in reality it isn't. You're doing a lot of "this is the way common > sense says it should be, therefore this is the way it is" kind of thinking > here. > There is a wonderful saying: "Ignorance of the law is no defense." To > the best of my knowledge, an owner of a copyright doesn't actually have > to post anything on the package - the package is still covered under > copyright law. Show me where in Title 17 it says, "If the owner does > not state a restriction along with the copyright notice, then this > restriction is not enforceable under law." What!? This is not my arguement. My arguement is that permission for 'home viewing' was explicitly given. The law in 1201(a)(3)(A) requires lack of such authority to have a cause of action, so there's no case. > "As is well known". Hmm. To the best of my knowledge, the "(c)" > symbol only publicly states that the copyright has been registered with > the Library of Congress. <> Your original statement was that the author doesn't say you can't make copies. I said the (c) covers this, ie the author says "I've registered the copyright" and as you argue above the copyright law implies the rest. Registration and display of the copyright notice allows additional causes of action that include statutory damages for infringement beyond unregistered works. > I would of course be open to citation stating that transfer of rights > under copyright law begins and ends with copyright notices. The copyright notice, is one way the author MAY grant additional permissions beyond those reserved under law to the author. Do you agree or disagree? > Any citation would be better than this "I believe it, so that settles > it" argument you've been presenting so far. Honestly, I would love for > this "home viewing only" reasoning to be correct and verifiable with law. > But all you've shown so far is a priori thinking and legal assumption. My arguement is that 1201(a)(3)(A) requires lack of access permission, but this authority was granted in the copyright notice. If the best you have after all this is "you don't have a citation", then I guess it's a pretty strong arguement. I bet I can find citations that say each of the following: 1. The copyright notice is one way the copyright holder may give permission for otherwise reserved rights. 2. Permission, once granted, cannot be retracted. Would this be enough to satisfy you? Do you dispute that either of these two statements are true? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 22:16:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA26731 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:16:05 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA26598 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:16:04 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11038 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:27:23 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:27:23 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000222192722.J9418@duskglow.com> References: <20000223025001.24288.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000223025001.24288.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:50:01PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:50:01PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > I bet I can find citations that say each of the following: > 1. The copyright notice is one way the copyright holder may give > permission for otherwise reserved rights. > 2. Permission, once granted, cannot be retracted. > Those sound shaky. I'd like to see those citations. --Russell > Would this be enough to satisfy you? Do you dispute that either of > these two statements are true? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 22:51:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA09819 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:51:08 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA09675 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:51:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 21857 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 03:55:16 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:55:16 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000222225516.L20634@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223025001.24288.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223025001.24288.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:50:01PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:50:01PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > And I'm still waiting for you to provide a legal definition for the > > word "authority". The best you've done so far is make up your own > > definition. Show me a legal reference that defines "authority" in > > the way you describe and I will happily concede the point. > > Authority is permission. Reference: > http://dictionary.law.com/definition.asp?selected=2478&bold=|||| > > I really don't see any other way to interpret the copyright notice. It > grants you permission for home viewing, so you view with the authority > of the copyright holder. You are not circumventing = > access-without-authority, but rather access-with-authority. This is > pretty straight forward stuff. Thank you. This is exactly what I've been trying to find - the legal definition of "authority". > > There is a wonderful saying: "Ignorance of the law is no defense." > To > > the best of my knowledge, an owner of a copyright doesn't actually > have > > to post anything on the package - the package is still covered under > > copyright law. Show me where in Title 17 it says, "If the owner does > > not state a restriction along with the copyright notice, then this > > restriction is not enforceable under law." > > What!? This is not my arguement. My arguement is that permission for > 'home viewing' was explicitly given. The law in 1201(a)(3)(A) requires > lack of such authority to have a cause of action, so there's no case. I have no disagreement with this statement. It's very possible I just misunderstood where you were going with this. > > "As is well known". Hmm. To the best of my knowledge, the "(c)" > > symbol only publicly states that the copyright has been registered > with > > the Library of Congress. <> > > Your original statement was that the author doesn't say you can't make > copies. Actually, that was an example of my original statement. My original statement was that restrictions of copyright don't have to be printed on the package in order to apply. The "copying" statement was an example. > I said the (c) covers this, ie the author says "I've registered > the copyright" and as you argue above the copyright law implies the > rest. Copyright law implies nothing. It flat-out says the rest. > Registration and display of the copyright notice allows > additional causes of action that include statutory damages for > infringement beyond unregistered works. I did some research into this a few years ago. From what I understand, legal protections under the Copyright Act exist regardless of registration, because a work is automatically covered under copyright upon completion. Registering the copyright simply makes it easier to prosecute infringement. There are other ways of proving copyright, however. Neither here nor there, but simply an interesting fact. > > I would of course be open to citation stating that transfer of rights > > under copyright law begins and ends with copyright notices. > > The copyright notice, is one way the author MAY grant additional > permissions beyond those reserved under law to the author. Do you agree > or disagree? Dunno. I'm not convinced that copyright notices are legally binding contracts. They may well be. I'd be interested in reading the actual laws that say they are, if only for my own information. > > Any citation would be better than this "I believe it, so that settles > > it" argument you've been presenting so far. Honestly, I would love > for > > this "home viewing only" reasoning to be correct and verifiable with > law. > > But all you've shown so far is a priori thinking and legal > assumption. > > My arguement is that 1201(a)(3)(A) requires lack of access permission, > but this authority was granted in the copyright notice. If the best you > have after all this is "you don't have a citation", then I guess it's a > pretty strong arguement. Let's say for a moment that "home viewing only" sticks. (I'd actually very much like it to, BTW.) DeCSS can be used for this purpose, but it certainly isn't limited to it. So here we have a technology that depending on the conditions of use, can be either circumventing or noncircumventing, because under these terms "circumvention" can't be proven until the device is used. Perhaps this is your point? My DNS resolver seems to be confused right now, and I can't pull up 1201. Does 1201a3 describe circumvention in terms of primary purpose or just in general? I don't suppose it would matter in terms of this argument. > I bet I can find citations that say each of the following: > 1. The copyright notice is one way the copyright holder may give > permission for otherwise reserved rights. > 2. Permission, once granted, cannot be retracted. > > Would this be enough to satisfy you? Do you dispute that either of > these two statements are true? Actually, I have no evidence at hand that either of the above are legally correct. If you can find citations, please do. They would help add to the information content of this forum. See? I told you it wasn't anything personal. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 23:24:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA22872 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:24:43 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA22869 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:24:42 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.16) with ESMTP id XAA12285 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:25:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id XAA06999; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:25:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:25:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002230425.XAA06999@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> References: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wendy Seltzer writes: > At 03:09 PM 2/21/00 -0500, rst@ai.mit.edu wrote: > >But, there's another way "content" winds up in the public domain, > >whether the author wants it to or not --- the copyright expires. > >Which suggests another angle of attack: with the DMCA in place, > >copyright holders still retain control over CSS-protected material > >even after the copyright has expired... > > It sounds like the start of a good "overbreadth" or misuse argument -- that > the DMCA allows authors/content producers to lock up much more material > than the Copyright Act does.... > > One problem, it seems to me, is that this is a very fact-based claim. The > courts will downplay the possibility of CSS-protecting public domain works, > absent evidence that the studios are _actually_ using CSS to protect > unprotectable content.... I'm surprised and gratified to see that they are (hearing about CSS-protected public domain movies was a pleasant surprise, given the circumstances), but that actually isn't the argument I was trying to make. Let me give it one more shot. I'll start with a paraphrase of Rob Warren's point regarding fair use, as I understand it. The DMCA (or more precisely, section 1201 of the U.S. code), *looks* like it doesn't interfere with anyone's fair use rights --- it says so itself, right in 1201(c)(1): "Nothing in this section shall effect ... fair use". But Rob's claim, which I agree with, is that even though section 1201 claims to leave the public all its traditional fair use rights, its anti-circumvention provisions in fact take them away, by making it insuperably difficult for the public to exercise them. The way this situation arises is that the publisher is allowed to impose access control devices, for instance, CSS or region coding. Further, while 1201(a)(1)(A) et seq. allow those access control devices to be bypassed for fair use (or other uses, if the Librarian of Congress allows it --- viz. 1201(a)(1)(D)), members of the public at large cannot obtain whatever technology they would need to actually bypass them, since 1201(b) doesn't allow anyone to provide it. In this particular case, the effect is that anyone who wants to exercise fair use rights to a CSS-protected DVD movie has to build their own DVD player --- which is obviously beyond the capacity of most of the general public. Particularly so when the MPAA is still arguing in another court that crucial information they'd need to build it --- the CSS specification itself --- is still trade secret. So far, I've argued (following Rob as closely as I could) that even though the language of section 1201 claims (in 1201(c)(1)) to preserve fair use rights, the effect of the anti-circumvention provisions is in fact to obliterate them. I'd like to step back now and look at what else those provisions might be doing. I'm going to be getting away from the particulars of the case at hand for a moment --- bear with me. To recapitulate, 1201 allows publishers to protect their content with access controls, and makes it a crime for anyone to provide technology which defeats those access controls. My first claim is that since technology which would defeat the access control device has been effectively criminalized by 1201(b), whatever restrictions are embodied in the code of the access control device have effectively acquired the force of law. [Paging Larry Lessig]. So, in effect, what section 1201 has done, even though the language of the section doesn't explicitly say so, is to grant authors and publishers a new right --- the right to control how, when, and where the content is displayed in human-viewable form, by encoding whatever restrictions they like in some access control device (in this case, they include region codes, but it could be anything) which 1201 has made insuperably difficult for the lay public to defeat. Which is fine as far as it goes --- the Constitution allows Congress to establish exclusive rights of all kind. But those rights must extend "for limited times" (article I, section 8). If Title 17 had language that actually *said*: (1) Copyright holders have the exclusive right to control the time, place and manner in which their works are displayed or performed. (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, the rights specified in paragraph (1) of this section shall not expire. then it would be plainly unconstitutional. But I'm arguing that the language of 1201 has the same effect --- by allowing copyright holders to embody their controls in an access control device which never times out, and criminalizing distribution of any technology which could defeat that device. FWIW, the access control device in the case at hand, CSS, does not have any provision for expiration dates that I'm aware of (as I've said before, you need CSS to read a DVD now, and you'll need it a thousand years from now) --- any access control device which did provide for expiration dates could be easily defeated by setting the clock ahead. One final note, on a completely different subject --- when arguing the similarity between programs and data with nontechnical folks, it might be useful to point out that the new Transmeta Crusoe processor is marketed as Pentium compatible, but doesn't actually have hardware to deal with Pentium instructions --- instead, it runs a program which translates them into its native instruction set (which they have not revealed to anyone outside the company -- they're marketing it as a "software microprocessor"). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 23:35:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA28170 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:35:36 -0500 Received: from suba01.suba.com (suba01.suba.com [198.87.202.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA28117 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:35:35 -0500 Received: from bugbug (max02-31.suba.com [206.69.121.95]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA21999 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:36:05 -0600 (CST) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:35:03 -0600 Message-ID: <000201bf7db7$5a3e9040$5f7945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu By the way Person(s) In Charge Of FAQ, you(s) might want to send it to Slashdot or similar outlets, as there is still a lot of thinking going on there which according to arguments here is wrong-headed (that you can defend DeCSS as reverse engineering). I think it would be a good idea, at least in general, not to have to wait for the populace to come to the FAQ. Send the FAQ to them. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Sampo A > Syreeni > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 6:11 AM > To: greslin@linuxpower.org > Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... > > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > >So I'm volunteering here. Give me questions you think should be > on the FAQ, > >and I'll write it up and put it on my own site. If Harvard > wants to put it > >here too, great; then it will be an official FAQ. > > Obvious ones: > 1) What is CSS/DeCSS? What do they do? Who made them? > 2) Who are the people on this list and why the list was created > 3) What cases are currently proceeding and who is involved (good guys, bad > guys, allegations, judges, current status) > 4) Why is MPAA attacking DeCSS? > 5) Basics of conventional copyright law and how it applies here > 6) DMCA and Section 17 and how they apply to CSS/DeCSS > 7) Copyright infringement vs. trafficking in circumvention tech > 8) Overturning DMCA/Section 17 vs. winning a particular case > (i.e. fighting > mpaa vs. fighting dmca/whatever) > 9) Constitutional arguments and why they might not be appropriate > 10) Where to find more (links to relevant places, (textual links) to > css/decss technical stuff, sites devoted to the subject) > > Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 22 23:39:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA29356 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:39:31 -0500 Received: from dial214.roadrunner.com (dial214.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.214]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29353 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:39:28 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial214.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA03837 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:43:02 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:43:01 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000222214301.B2997@localhost> References: <20000223025001.24288.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <20000222225516.L20634@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000222225516.L20634@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:55:16PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:50:01PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Registration and display of the copyright notice allows > additional causes of action that include statutory damages for > infringement beyond unregistered works. On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:55:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > I did some research into this a few years ago. From what I understand, > legal protections under the Copyright Act exist regardless of registration, > because a work is automatically covered under copyright upon completion. > Registering the copyright simply makes it easier to prosecute infringement. > There are other ways of proving copyright, however. The (c) symbol gets pasted on things because the Berne Convention wants it. One must register with the copyright office before a suit is filed. If a work is registered within five years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and the facts stated on the registration ceritificate. If the registration is made within three months of publication [or prior to an infringement of the work (this was true for 1978 law, still true?) ], statutory damages and attorney's fees may be awarded by the court. The alternative is actual damages and profits. I believe 1989 is the cut-off year for mandatory copyright notice on widely disseminated works. After that date (I don't remember if it is inclusive), no notice is needed, even on widely disseminated works _within the U.S._. Widely disseminated works prior to that date lose copyright and enter the public domain. After that date, they retain copyright (but not statutory damages?) On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:55:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Does 1201a3 describe circumvention in terms of primary purpose or > just in general? o (3) As used in this subsection - + (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 00:01:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA10714 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:01:24 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA10709 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:01:22 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.16) with ESMTP id AAA15238 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:01:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id AAA07227; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:01:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:01:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002230501.AAA07227@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: <200002230425.XAA06999@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> References: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> <200002230425.XAA06999@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu One final note on my last screed... when I said Robert S. Thau writes: > technology which would defeat the access control device has been > effectively criminalized by 1201(b) ... I probably should have noted that the actual criminal penalties, spelled out in 1204, only apply to violations of 1201 "for commercial advantage or private financial gain"; otherwise, as far as I can tell civil and not criminal law applies (cf. 1203). Sigh... it's late, and I'm still not a lawyer. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 00:26:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA21051 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:26:22 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA21048 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:26:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 22006 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 05:30:47 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:30:47 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Off-topic but a small break Message-ID: <20000223003047.O20634@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This doesn't have anything directly to do with any of the discussion going on here, but I thought I would share it anyway. I was reading through my copy of the Tao te Ching this evening and came across this passage. It's Chapter 69 of "The Illustrated Tao te Ching", translated by Kwok, Palmer and Ramsay: "There is a saying, you know, which soldiers have: ' I never use my force before my enemy uses his. I'd sooner go back a foot than advance an inch. ' This is called going forward without moving. Rolling up your sleeve without showing your arm - And by not, you defeat him without apparently doing anything. This is like being armed, but no one sees what you have. Never think that your enemy is feeble. That's disasterous. If I do that, I'm bound to lose all I have! So, you see, when the battle begins It is the one who seems weakest that will win." Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 00:42:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA30255 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:42:39 -0500 Received: from suba01.suba.com (suba01.suba.com [198.87.202.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA30252 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:42:38 -0500 Received: from bugbug (max02-31.suba.com [206.69.121.95]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA24033 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:43:15 -0600 (CST) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:42:12 -0600 Message-ID: <000501bf7dc0$bbd11d60$5f7945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <20000222225516.L20634@linuxpower.org> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu If the presence or absence of the notice on the media is immaterial, then the permission should be granted regardless of its presence or absence, wouldn't this be right? > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of > greslin@linuxpower.org > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 9:55 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:50:01PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > I bet I can find citations that say each of the following: > > 1. The copyright notice is one way the copyright holder may give > > permission for otherwise reserved rights. > > 2. Permission, once granted, cannot be retracted. > > > > Would this be enough to satisfy you? Do you dispute that either of > > these two statements are true? > > Actually, I have no evidence at hand that either of the above are legally > correct. If you can find citations, please do. They would help add to > the information content of this forum. > > See? I told you it wasn't anything personal. :) > > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 00:49:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA31967 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:49:12 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA31964 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:49:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 22016 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 05:53:41 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:53:41 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] FAQ Goodness Message-ID: <20000223005341.P20634@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Since the last mention was in the middle of a thread, I thought I'd make a whole new thread for this. I'm in the process of putting together an FAQ for this group. We have new people coming into this discussion all the time, and the volume is increasing every day. We're also running over the same ground over and over again. If you have ideas for questions, please say so. I think for legitimacy sake all named contributors to the FAQ should be listed with their true names and email addresses; this will add a level of responsibility to the FAQ and make it look less like a bunch of Internet hackers playing lawyer. I'm going to work on getting the first rough cut of the FAQ out in the next couple of days; I'll post the first cut on my personal website and give you all the URL when it's up. I expect we'll have plenty of arguing to do before everyone's happy with it. :) Some ground rules, let me know what you think: 1. Real names and email addresses. Anyone who wishes recognition for their contributions to this FAQ should accept responsibility for their work. 2. The FAQ will not attempt to definitively answer issues that have not been decided in court. Rather, we will try and present the differing views in each issue as presented by contributors. 3. There should be a disclaimer stating that while we are discussing legal issues, the vast majority of us are not lawyers, and many of these issues are still up in the air. (BTW.. anyone out there who *is* a laywer, please speak up. :)) Wendy, feel free to mirror the FAQ once it's reached a point that you feel comfortable with it being "official". Okay. I'm open for comments. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 00:51:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA32575 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:51:33 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA32572 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:51:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 22025 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 05:56:03 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:56:03 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000223005603.Q20634@linuxpower.org> References: <20000222225516.L20634@linuxpower.org> <000501bf7dc0$bbd11d60$5f7945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <000501bf7dc0$bbd11d60$5f7945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain>; from sparky on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:42:12PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:42:12PM -0600, sparky wrote: > > If the presence or absence of the notice on the media is immaterial, then > the permission should be granted regardless of its presence or absence, > wouldn't this be right? Unless otherwise indicated by law. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 01:05:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA02551 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:05:28 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA02548 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:05:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 9409 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 06:01:25 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 06:01:25 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA16491; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:06:03 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:06:03 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230606.WAA16491@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:42:12PM -0600, sparky wrote: >> >> If the presence or absence of the notice on the media is immaterial, then >> the permission should be granted regardless of its presence or absence, >> wouldn't this be right? > >Unless otherwise indicated by law. Can this go into the FAQ? Anyway 70 msgs to go. Oh brother... >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 01:11:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA04371 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:11:20 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA04368 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:11:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 9662 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 06:07:16 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 06:07:16 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA16738; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:11:55 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:11:55 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230611.WAA16738@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: >On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:50:01PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >> Registration and display of the copyright notice allows >> additional causes of action that include statutory damages for >> infringement beyond unregistered works. > >On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:55:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> I did some research into this a few years ago. From what I understand, >> legal protections under the Copyright Act exist regardless of registration, >> because a work is automatically covered under copyright upon completion. >> Registering the copyright simply makes it easier to prosecute infringement. >> There are other ways of proving copyright, however. > >The (c) symbol gets pasted on things because the Berne Convention wants it. > >One must register with the copyright office before a suit is filed. > >If a work is registered within five years of publication, registration will >establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the >copyright and the facts stated on the registration ceritificate. > >If the registration is made within three months of publication [or >prior to an infringement of the work (this was true for 1978 law, still >true?) ], statutory damages and attorney's fees may be awarded by >the court. The alternative is actual damages and profits. > >I believe 1989 is the cut-off year for mandatory copyright notice on >widely disseminated works. After that date (I don't remember if it >is inclusive), no notice is needed, even on widely disseminated >works _within the U.S._. Widely disseminated works prior to that date >lose copyright and enter the public domain. After that date, they >retain copyright (but not statutory damages?) > >On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:55:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> Does 1201a3 describe circumvention in terms of primary purpose or >> just in general? > > o (3) As used in this subsection - > + (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright > owner; and > (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to > a > work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its > operation, > requires the application of information, or a process or a > treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain > access to the work. > > >Paul Fenimore ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 01:21:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA07065 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:21:21 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA07062 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:21:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 10098 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 06:17:18 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 06:17:18 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA17159; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:21:56 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:21:56 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230621.WAA17159@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Ignore earlier post fat fingersRe: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: >On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:55:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> Does 1201a3 describe circumvention in terms of primary purpose or >> just in general? > > o (3) As used in this subsection - > + (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright > owner; and > (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to > a > work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its > operation, > requires the application of information, or a process or a > treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain > access to the work. I'm a little concerned about this. It says the security feature is recognized to exist if you need to apply some sort of technique with a license to do so. What counts as a license? > >Paul Fenimore Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 01:28:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA08704 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:28:40 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA08700 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:28:38 -0500 Received: (qmail 10632 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 06:24:34 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 06:24:34 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA17556; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:29:11 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:29:11 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230629.WAA17556@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The devil: Speech is irrelevant: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982). Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 07:09:42PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> Look it isn't that hard. It is illegal to copy VHS tapes in New York but it is legal to sell them. >> > >Are you sure about this? I'm fairly sure that selling bootleg VHS tapes is illegal almost >anywhere in the world. > They said it on TV. Though perhaps I got it backwards. It's legal to buy the tapes. >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 01:50:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA14318 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:50:41 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA14315 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:50:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 11741 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 06:46:38 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 06:46:38 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA18994; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:51:16 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:51:16 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230651.WAA18994@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] just my 2 cents (in whatever currency is most devalued today:-) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Francisco Figueirido wrote: >I have been following this discussion for a while and have seen several >comments revolving around the meaning of `software.' The one I can remember >now (sorry, I seem to have deleted by mistake the message) was something >like: `software is a bunch of instructions.' I think this is a rather naive >definition, in that it is all-encompasing. >Under this definition, ANYTHING that can be read by a computer would be >software. After all, you can always write a program that performs >different operations based on the bits it reads. Certainly anything that can be executed is software. Scripts, machine code, markup code. A recording of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is not software unless you can prove its use by the military to program soldiers. Unlikely. >Although I am not a lawyer, I doubt Congress had such an encompasing >definition in mind. On the other hand, the aforementioned comment clearly >points out the blurring line between code and data (no matter what CPU >builders tell you :-). Ironically I have been on a CPU dev list for the last 8 months. >Does anybody know of a definition that would be commonly used by lawyers? >Is there any? Or are they just talking on empty air (I very much doubt >it)? Or maybe a definition is not that important, as the intent of the law >is more important than its letter (or something like that seems to have >stuck to my naive brain cells). Intent is one lead we can follow because so far the letter has proved vague. >-- >Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 >Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 >Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com >400 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor >New York, NY 10017 Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 01:54:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA15113 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:54:49 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA15110 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:54:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 11949 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 06:50:46 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 06:50:46 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA19143; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:55:24 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:55:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230655.WAA19143@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Francisco Figueirido wrote: >Sampo A Syreeni wrote: >> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: >> >> >For example program A&B could be MS Word and we make Star-Office to >> >read .doc files. Or it could be CSS and we make DeCSS to read .vob >> >files. >> >> CSS is generic encryption. Why not construct a ToCSS freeware implementation >> to demonstrate this point - haha.doc.css, you know? >> >> Also, is there a player out there which cannot handle non-CSS DVD's? That >> would prove that there is no alternative to using CSS and, in conjunction >> with a PD distribution of just about anything, support the overbreadth >> arguments made elsewhere on the list. >> > >There are at least several examples of lack of support for hardware-based >acceleration for MPEG2 decoding due, presumably, to fear of retaliation by >the MPAA and friends (case in mind: ask Sigma Designs whether they would >support Dxr3-based cards on Linux). This by itself doesn't make much of a >case, as I can't see any legal way of forcing a vendor to support Linux (and >Sigma Designs seems committed to it, by the way). Virtual Trust Behaviour again? >Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 >Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 >Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com >400 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor >New York, NY 10017 Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 02:00:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA16119 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:00:13 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA16116 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:00:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 12191 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 06:56:10 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 06:56:10 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA19415; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:00:48 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:00:48 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230700.XAA19415@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >Rares Marian wrote: > >> It doesn't go both ways. I have viewed DVDs in the traditional manner. No Gimmicks, just the movie. > >Just because you didn't consciously interact with the program commands does not mean that the program and the >commands aren't there. The movie doesn't play without the program. You can't view it without the program. The >program tells the player to play the movie, even if you only play it straight through with no "gimmicks". So in effect you boot the DVD-Player off the DVD? Hmm... they should have called it DVDfs since CSS serves as the header to a filesystem. Hmmm..... Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 02:09:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA18059 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:09:34 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA18056 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:09:24 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12NVvs-000860-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:10:00 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 23 Feb 100 08:10:00 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> from "Bryan Taylor" at Feb 22, 0 01:25:58 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > > (a) Chaplin on DVD. Guess what? Region 1 encoded. Price fixing may > > just be their undoing. > > > > If these are definitely public domain, then this is a very strong > point. Congress certainly has no authority to "build a moat filled with > litigators" around public domain content. > Once again region coding does *not* imply CSS. Is anyone out there that has one of these discs and could check? > > > > > (b) Nosferatu on DVD. Guess what? Region 1 encoded. > > > Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 02:10:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA18268 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:10:45 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA18265 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:10:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 12603 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 07:06:41 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 07:06:41 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA20092; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:11:19 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:11:19 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230711.XAA20092@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >From the Comments of the CCIA (http://cryptome.org/dmca-ccia.htm) > >"In this context, we note that at some point in the near future computer programs will >be distributed on DVDs. Guess what! SuSE Linux 6.3 comes on a DVD, if you ask for it. Now isn't that special. I mean say I make a Lasagna Recipes for Code Warriors CD. I have to pay the MPAA through the extra cost the manufacturers have to put up from having to pay the Forum (Inquisition, might as well be). >Would reverse engineering CSS to permit these programs to run on Linux be permitted >under the DMCA as >enacted, or would the exception not apply because the decryption software would also >allow the running of >movies? To eliminate the possibility of this absurd result, reverse engineering for >the purpose of permitting all >forms interoperability -- and not just between computer software -- should be >permitted." >Don't know if this helps. I just needed to vent.;-) Let it go. Time for cold hard logic now. > >-- >Dana J. Parker >Consultant >http://www.cdpage.com >Contributing editor/standards columnist >Emedia magazine >http://www.emediapro.net >DVD PRO Conference Chair >http://www.dvdpro.net >I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression >http://www.eff.org/cafe > >mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 02:18:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA19801 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:18:32 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA19798 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:18:30 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA32103 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:17:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:17:52 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Ignore earlier post fat fingersRe: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000223021752.N28173@nacs.net> References: <200002230621.WAA17159@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002230621.WAA17159@ns1.filetron.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:21:56PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Paul Fenimore wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:55:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >> Does 1201a3 describe circumvention in terms of primary purpose or > >> just in general? > > > > o (3) As used in this subsection - > > + (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to > > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or > > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a > > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright > > owner; and > > (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to > > a > > work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its > > operation, > > requires the application of information, or a process or a > > treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain > > access to the work. > > I'm a little concerned about this. It says the security feature is recognized to exist if you need to apply some sort of technique with a license to do so. What counts as a license? I don't mean to nit-pick, but... okay, I *DO* mean to nit-pick, but: According to (B) above, the following access mechanism ``effectively controls access to a work'': When movie is started, the question "If copyright owner so gave you permission, please enter 'hello' here ==>" This seems to be the minimum necessary to prevent reverse engineering, eliminate "fair use", effectively control a monopoly on playback devices. Typing 'hello' without the authority of the copyright owner would constitute circumvention and would be an illegal act. Hell, pressing 'Play' on the DVD is a (very simple) process! Does anyone see anything in the above wording which would prevent a copyright owner from claiming he did not authorize the pressing of the 'Play' button? Reductio ad absurdum at it's finest. (I finally get to use Latin - it was either that or deus ex machina, which I hope the LOC can grant us about now...). Could it be shown that the language here is so general that there is effectively *no* requirement for an "access control mechanism" for "circumvention" to apply? -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice P.S. As always, ain't no lawyer. Me code, you sue (or whatever). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 02:20:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA20154 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:20:08 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA20151 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:20:07 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12NW6I-000SKi-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:20:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Important Fwd to DVD lawyers: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 23 Feb 100 08:20:45 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200002230054.TAA17501@fb00.eng00.mindspring.net> from "John Young" at Feb 22, 0 07:48:13 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Bear in mind that EFF attorneys are prohibited from disclosing > the confidential affairs of clients -- those named defendants who > have formally agreed to have specific attorneys represent them (EFF is > not authorized to practice law, only individuals are). Attorneys can be > severely sanctioned for disclosure. > > Defendants may disclose whatever they wish, and may or may not > heed the advice of counsel on this. > > Moreover, no sage attorney is going to reveal in a public forum > what the case strategy is, except whatever might demonize the > opposition or boost client's angelicism. I don't think anyone is asking them to disclose anything, but simply reading this forum may help them come up with better strategies. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 02:26:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA21703 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:26:29 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA21700 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:26:28 -0500 Received: (qmail 13620 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 07:22:26 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 07:22:26 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA20718; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:27:03 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:27:03 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230727.XAA20718@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Ignore earlier post fat fingersRe: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jason M. Felice wrote: >On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:21:56PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> Paul Fenimore wrote: >> >On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:55:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> >> Does 1201a3 describe circumvention in terms of primary purpose or >> >> just in general? >> > >> > o (3) As used in this subsection - >> > + (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to >> > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or >> > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a >> > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright >> > owner; and >> > (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to >> > a >> > work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its >> > operation, >> > requires the application of information, or a process or a >> > treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain >> > access to the work. >> >> I'm a little concerned about this. It says the security feature is recognized to exist if you need to apply some sort of technique with a license to do so. What counts as a license? >Could it be shown that the language here is so general that there is >effectively *no* requirement for an "access control mechanism" for >"circumvention" to apply? I think we're getting warmer. It's 2:22 am Feb 23(DOH!) I need to sleep. And 50 msgs to go. > >-Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice > >P.S. As always, ain't no lawyer. Me code, you sue (or whatever). ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 02:27:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA21732 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:27:14 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA21727 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:27:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 13707 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 07:23:11 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 07:23:11 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA20744; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:27:49 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:27:49 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230727.XAA20744@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:51:01PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:16:10PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:50:34PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >> > > >> > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> > > > "Attached" was my word and not intended as a legal term. The fact >> > > > remains that CSS is the access control mechanism that was chosen >> > > > here. That access control mechanism is currently legal and Section 12 >> > > > applies. >> > > >> > > You seem to be pretty good at pointing out things that are not in >> > > dispute :-] I still content that DeCSS gives access-with-authority past >> > > the access control system. >> > >> > And I'm still waiting for you to provide a legal definition for the >> > word "authority". The best you've done so far is make up your own >> > definition. Show me a legal reference that defines "authority" in the >> > way you describe and I will happily concede the point. >> >> I too noticed that "authority" is not defined in 1201. It is possible >> that we've got a vagueness problem here with the law. However: >> >> (i) The word "authorize" is used in 106 in reference to public >> performance, 106(4). Private performance is exempt from regulation >> by 106. > >Just looked it up. Something even more interesting is the "Historical and >Revision Notes", House Report 94-1476, attached to 106. You can look it up >at http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm. (This is the source I'm using for U.S. >Code references.) > >Unfortunately, the closest it gets to defining "authority" seems to be this: > >"The exclusive rights accorded to a copyright owner under section > 106 are ''to do and to authorize'' any of the activities specified > in the five numbered clauses. Use of the phrase ''to authorize'' > is intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of > contributory infringers. For example, a person who lawfully > acquires an authorized copy of a motion picture would be an > infringer if he or she engages in the business of renting it to > others for purposes of unauthorized public performance." > >Tricky, slippery stuff indeed. At the same time, 106 may not even >apply since they're not suing for infringement. Jesus, is this a bad >law; it gets worse every day. > > >> (ii) 1201(c) uses the words "infringement" right next to "fair use". >> Fair use includes private performance. > >More importantly, private performance is outside of the copyright rights >as generally defined in 106. 106 doesn't seem to grant the copyright >holder the authority to muck about with private performance. Paul, if >you want to start harping on the "right to read" now, this is the time >to do it. :) > >I suppose if "reading" is synonymous with private performance, while >there isn't an explicit right there, there is no explicit right to control >it, either. > >You know, the more I read 1201, the more I think 1201a1 is a smoke screen >and a distraction for 1201a2. 1201a1 talks about fair use, infringement, >and the Librarian of Congress, but 1201a2 doesn't talk about any of that. >It just talks about access and control and circumvention. Is it possible we're assuming other things are defined clearly? One approach would be: Can we find a way to be able to say to the judge, hello 1201a1 is irrelevant? Let's stick to 1201a2, judge. It could be the thing to pull them out of the sandbox. This would allow us to: 1. Block attempts to confuse issues by referrals to 1201a1, 2. Focus... we need to focus (it's considerably better than when we started.) 3. If we can find ambiguities within 1201a2 then we can tear them apart. > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 02:29:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA22277 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:29:11 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA22273 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:29:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 13929 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 07:25:08 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 07:25:08 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA20845; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:29:46 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:29:46 -0800 Message-Id: <200002230729.XAA20845@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Important Fwd to DVD lawyers: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: >> >> Bear in mind that EFF attorneys are prohibited from disclosing >> the confidential affairs of clients -- those named defendants who >> have formally agreed to have specific attorneys represent them (EFF is >> not authorized to practice law, only individuals are). Attorneys can be >> severely sanctioned for disclosure. >> >> Defendants may disclose whatever they wish, and may or may not >> heed the advice of counsel on this. >> >> Moreover, no sage attorney is going to reveal in a public forum >> what the case strategy is, except whatever might demonize the >> opposition or boost client's angelicism. > >I don't think anyone is asking them to disclose anything, but simply reading >this forum may help them come up with better strategies. Letting us know that they did is good too. It helps w/ morale in the trenches. >Sham ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 02:34:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA23953 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:34:33 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA23950 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:34:32 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12NWKC-000Ilk-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:35:08 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] just my 2 cents (in whatever currency is most To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 23 Feb 100 08:35:08 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200002230651.WAA18994@ns1.filetron.com> from "Rares Marian" at Feb 22, 0 10:51:16 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Certainly anything that can be executed is software. So how is 'execution' defined in this context? As I've said before if interpreted programs fall under this definition, then MPEG code, which instructs the MPEG player on what colour to make which pixel when could also be seen to be 'executed'. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 02:45:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA26446 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:45:27 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA26443 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:45:26 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11881 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:56:43 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:56:43 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] just my 2 cents (in whatever currency is most Message-ID: <20000222235643.C11658@duskglow.com> References: <200002230651.WAA18994@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from gara0013@fh-karlsruhe.de on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:35:08AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think the distinction between "execution" is best put as whether the data is used as a control or as a dataset. And even this is blurry. So let me talk out of my ass for a bit: Example: Computer code = executed Emulated computer code = executed OR data. because the emulated code is data to the emulator, but to the data it uses (under emulation) it's a program. MPEG = data because MPEG is an encoding of external real-world stuff. Your example about MPEGs being a program, well... the MPEG doesn't actually turn ON the pixel, it just encodes the information so the player can do it and represent it reasonably faithfully to what was input. the player/software is still doing the work. DVD video = data because the actual video is meant to be "played". DVD control program = executed because the hardware executes this code as instructions. though the argument could be made, and with some degree of accuracy, that it is also data, because it is not EXECUTED, but merely provides information for control flow. DVD executable code = executed. It could be argued that a DVD is both data and software for this reason. In summary: data is stuff that encodes the information the program needs to create sensible output program is stuff that actually instructs the hardware to create the sensible output, given the data. Of course, this has nothing to do with law. --Russell On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:35:08AM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > Certainly anything that can be executed is software. > > So how is 'execution' defined in this context? As I've said before if > interpreted programs fall under this definition, then MPEG code, which > instructs the MPEG player on what colour to make which pixel when could also > be seen to be 'executed'. > > Sham -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 03:25:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA10446 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:25:05 -0500 Received: from train.sdrm.org (cx48762-a.cv1.sdca.home.com [24.0.158.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA10369 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:25:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (wolfgang@localhost) by train.sdrm.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA21615 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:25:11 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:25:11 -0800 (PST) From: Lewis E Wolfgang To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] just my 2 cents (in whatever currency is most devalued today:-) In-Reply-To: <200002230651.WAA18994@ns1.filetron.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: > Certainly anything that can be executed is software. Scripts, > machine code, markup code. A recording of The Good, The Bad, > and The Ugly is not software unless you can prove its use by > the military to program soldiers. > Unlikely. Way back in the mid '70s I recall building a matrix of lights, maybe 10 on a side, that could be controlled by a DEC PDP-8 minicomputer. A machine language program, entered bit-by-bit, word-by-word, was written to flash the lights in cool patterns. (I know, but I had nothing better to do, it was on a long oceanographic research voyage in the Indian Ocean) Thus, the machine language program comprised the instructions to flash lights in a matrix. How is DVD content any different? A DVD is nothing more than a container for a sequence of instructions to flash lights on a crt monitor. It is the information contained in the patterns of program/data that is important here. Thus I would argue that "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is as much software as my assembly language light flasher. This whole thing about semantics is bothersome to me. I would hope that a successful defense of DeCSS can be achieved on first principles, not on semantics. Regards, Lew Wolfgang From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 03:58:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA16213 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:58:09 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA16210 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:58:05 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12NXd0-00010y-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:58:38 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:58:38 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This just occurred to me: It is possible to write a opensource CSS encryptor, as a standalon program, say for allowing small studios to 'protect' their movies. Such a program is not in danger of violating the anti- circumvention portions of DMCA, as clearly it does _not_ facilitate circumvention, quite to the contrary. ( I'd like to see MPAA try and stop this in court ) Secondly it will then have been established that CSS encryptor is a program, and the interoperability issue can then be established, except for the fact that NO reverse engeneering will be needed. If a stand alone CSS encryptor would acomplish anything in court, I'd be willing to write it. Even if it doesn't accomplish anything legaly, it would greatly enhance the reddening of the MPAAs faces. frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 07:53:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA07726 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:53:45 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA07723 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:53:44 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12NbJ7-0001V3-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:54:21 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:54:21 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Overly broadness (part thereof) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sec. 1201(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- Consider the case of Macrovision - a minor distortion in the video signal that can be remedied in a numerous ways - even surreptitiousiously. To build a dedicated device that cleans up this particular distortion only requires some handsfulls of commonly available parts. Should this law be interpreted to its fullest extent, sale of whole classes of common electronic components will have to be banned. ( Imagine blacklist of op-amps , resistor blacklist, illegal vero-board sizes etc. etc. ) Apply this to DeCSS, a PC running DeCSS, must according to MPAAs views be a 'device' for 'circumvention'. Arguably then the PC is a vital part of such a device. So manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in PCs should be banned together with DeCSS. ( If any such ban is to be enforced ) frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 08:39:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA22905 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:39:07 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA22874 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:39:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 22686 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 13:43:32 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:43:32 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Message-ID: <20000223084332.A22678@linuxpower.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Frank Andrew Stevenson on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:58:38AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:58:38AM +0100, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > It took me a second to realize where I saw your name before. Hi. It's a pleasure to meet you. Team, in case any of you don't know, this is the gentleman who wrote the CSS algorithm whitepaper we've been handing around the Internet for the last four months. > This just occurred to me: > > It is possible to write a opensource CSS encryptor, as > a standalon program, say for allowing small studios to > 'protect' their movies. > Such a program is not in danger of violating the anti- > circumvention portions of DMCA, as clearly it does > _not_ facilitate circumvention, quite to the contrary. > ( I'd like to see MPAA try and stop this in court ) I fail to see why they'd care, at least in court. It doesn't do anything to screw around with their copyrights. But, what it *would* do is weaken the status of "CSS" as a trade secret. The more this technology is distributed, and the more widely this is known, the more pointless litigation becomes. > > Secondly it will then have been established that CSS > encryptor is a program, and the interoperability issue > can then be established, except for the fact that NO > reverse engeneering will be needed. But the fact remains that DeCSS isn't interoperating with the CSS encryption program, per se, except in the sense that a key interacts with a lock mold and die. > > If a stand alone CSS encryptor would acomplish anything > in court, I'd be willing to write it. Even if it doesn't > accomplish anything legaly, it would greatly enhance the > reddening of the MPAAs faces. Please do. I'm not sure it would do anything in court, but it would add one more technological piece to it all. The more, the merrier. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 08:45:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA24826 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:45:24 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA24823 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:45:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 22692 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 13:49:56 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:49:56 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000223084956.B22678@linuxpower.org> References: <200002230727.XAA20744@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002230727.XAA20744@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:27:49PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:27:49PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > >You know, the more I read 1201, the more I think 1201a1 is a smoke screen > >and a distraction for 1201a2. 1201a1 talks about fair use, infringement, > >and the Librarian of Congress, but 1201a2 doesn't talk about any of that. > >It just talks about access and control and circumvention. > > Is it possible we're assuming other things are defined clearly? > > One approach would be: > Can we find a way to be able to say to the judge, hello 1201a1 is irrelevant? Let's stick to 1201a2, judge. It could be the thing to pull them out of the sandbox. This would allow us to: > 1. Block attempts to confuse issues by referrals to 1201a1, > 2. Focus... we need to focus (it's considerably better than when we started.) > 3. If we can find ambiguities within 1201a2 then we can tear them apart. 1201a1 isn't fully effective yet - this is the clause that makes circumvention itself illegal. This is also the clause that talks about exemptions of a "certain class of works" as defined by the decision of the Librarian. 1201a1 *is* irrelevant, and Kaplan would agree - he actually pointed it out several times during the injunction hearing. The MPAA is suing over 1201a2, which regards manufacture and distribution of circumventing technologies. Note that shelter under the Librarian's decision is not given under 1201a2. If the MPAA lawyers even tried to refer to 1201a1, we could take the NY transcript and beat them to death with it, especially since it's not really active until next year. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 08:46:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA25089 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:46:45 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA25086 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:46:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 22700 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 13:51:19 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:51:19 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000223085119.C22678@linuxpower.org> References: <200002230606.WAA16491@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002230606.WAA16491@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:06:03PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:06:03PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:42:12PM -0600, sparky wrote: > >> > >> If the presence or absence of the notice on the media is immaterial, then > >> the permission should be granted regardless of its presence or absence, > >> wouldn't this be right? > > > >Unless otherwise indicated by law. > > Can this go into the FAQ? Anyway 70 msgs to go. Oh brother... Question #12 - "Doesn't the statement 'for home use only' on the DVD cover DeCSS use?" Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 09:06:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA31537 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:06:56 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA31506 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:06:55 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA32668 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:06:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:06:05 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Message-ID: <20000223090605.O28173@nacs.net> References: <20000223084332.A22678@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223084332.A22678@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:43:32AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:58:38AM +0100, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > > > > It took me a second to realize where I saw your name before. > Hi. It's a pleasure to meet you. > > Team, in case any of you don't know, this is the gentleman > who wrote the CSS algorithm whitepaper we've been handing around > the Internet for the last four months. > > > > This just occurred to me: > > > > It is possible to write a opensource CSS encryptor, as > > a standalon program, say for allowing small studios to > > 'protect' their movies. > > Such a program is not in danger of violating the anti- > > circumvention portions of DMCA, as clearly it does > > _not_ facilitate circumvention, quite to the contrary. > > ( I'd like to see MPAA try and stop this in court ) > > I fail to see why they'd care, at least in court. It doesn't do > anything to screw around with their copyrights. I think the point he's trying to make is that if we produced DVD media which was CSS encoded, then distributed it, not only the MPAA is the "authority", but we are an "authority" as well, able to grant use of DeCSS, so long as we own the copyright on the work we are distributing. Not to mention, there is no law for distributing the CSS encryptor program, and wide use (which would actually be helpful to the public) would allow all sorts of users to encode their own works with CSS. MPAA no longer "authority" at all. DVDCCA was relying on trade secret to become monopoly. My, my, that *is* twisted. Which makes me think... Is there any CSS encoded work on DVD where the copy right is owned by some guy in a garage that we can pay off? -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 09:10:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA32204 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:10:31 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA32201 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:10:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id QAA04685 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:11:07 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:11:06 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: <20000223025001.24288.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: >My arguement is that 1201(a)(3)(A) requires lack of access permission, >but this authority was granted in the copyright notice. If the best you >have after all this is "you don't have a citation", then I guess it's a >pretty strong arguement. One problem is the wording of 1201(a)(3)(A): to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; In the copyright, authority is relinguished to 'descramble' the work, with a condition that it is used for home viewing. It is arguable that DeCSS actually permanently 'removes' the protection and possibly for a purpose other than *just* home viewing. Hence no authority. The difference comes from DeCSS being used in a way and in an environment where the descrambled outcome is left for all to see, unlike in the case of players which (probably because of DVDCCA licencing requirements) carefully make it as difficult as possible to copy the decrypted stuff anywhere. Now the wording of 1201(a)(3)(B) gains its teeth: (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. I.e. effective control hinges on a measure requiring something to be *usually* done on the authority of someone. It is quite clear that CSS on DVD constitutes effective control - ordinary reading of CSS'd DVDs requires key information to be applied to gain access. After somehow sorting out the authority bit, effective control is established and both 1201(a)(2)(A) and 1201(a)(2)(B) apply automatically: by the above meditation on removal, there is circumvention in the sense of 1201(a)(3)(A) and that is all DeCSS does (removes protection/encryption) and since it really does nothing else, 1201(a)(2)(B) applies even more. The only logical hole is the authority part above. Do we need authority from the copyright owner in the ordinary course of operation of CSS? Somehow it feels like the copyright owner has nothing to do with what 1201(a)(2-3) aim at. Did somebody confuse the legistlative equivalent of DVD CCA with the copyright owner at some stage? Or is there some chain of delegation which somehow transfers the 'authority' of the copyright owner to the CCA? Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 09:14:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA00912 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:14:45 -0500 Received: from mail1.bellatlantic.net (mail1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.32.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA00903 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:14:44 -0500 Received: from banquo (adsl-151-202-34-10.bellatlantic.net [151.202.34.10]) by mail1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA27819 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:15:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000223083937.00daed60@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:18:03 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: Important Fwd to DVD lawyers: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD In-Reply-To: <200002230729.XAA20845@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I have had conversations with members of the defense teams, and they are following the discussions here with interest. I'm talking with them about how best to advance the collaboration. Promising arguments in these forums will not be ignored. Thanks! --Wendy At 11:29 PM 2/22/00 -0800, rmarian@linuxstart.com wrote: >Sham Gardner wrote: >>I don't think anyone is asking them to disclose anything, but simply reading >>this forum may help them come up with better strategies. > >Letting us know that they did is good too. It helps w/ morale in the trenches. > >>Sham > >---------------------- >Do you do Linux? :) >Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com --- Wendy Seltzer Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 09:23:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA03654 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:23:44 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03651 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:23:43 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12NciB-0000P2-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:24:19 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:24:19 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > The only logical hole is the authority part above. Do we need authority from > the copyright owner in the ordinary course of operation of CSS? Somehow it > feels like the copyright owner has nothing to do with what 1201(a)(2-3) aim > at. Did somebody confuse the legistlative equivalent of DVD CCA with the > copyright owner at some stage? Or is there some chain of delegation which > somehow transfers the 'authority' of the copyright owner to the CCA? And how does this apply to public domain material 'protected' by CSS ? In these cases there doesn't even exist a copyright owner capable of granting 'authority' to access the works. Where no 'authority' can be granted, none should be required !! frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 09:26:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA04322 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:26:32 -0500 Received: from kwanon.research.canon.com.au (kwanon.research.canon.com.au [203.12.172.254]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA04318 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:26:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 25245 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 14:26:33 -0000 Received: from eos.research.canon.com.au (203.12.175.190) by kwanon-heat.research.canon.com.au with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 14:26:32 -0000 Received: from ramires.research.canon.com.au (ramires.research.canon.com.au [203.12.174.82]) by eos.research.canon.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7C84674 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:18:34 +1100 (EST) Received: by ramires.research.canon.com.au (Postfix, from userid 331) id E923BF4DF; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:12:43 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:12:43 +1100 From: Cameron Simpson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] discrediting CSS as an access control (was: 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate) Message-ID: <20000223131243.A3100@ramires.research.canon.com.au> References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221094651.W11768@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000221094651.W11768@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:46:51AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:46:51AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: | > > I would say that the simple fact that the MPAA is suing over | > > this sort of shows that this is being done without their | > > authority. | > | > All aspects of the access authority are transferred at the time of | > sale. The MPAA can't come back months or years later and say "well what | > we wanted to say was XYZ". Too bad, the deal is done. The MPAA can't | > retroactively change what's written on the DVD copyright grant, even if | > they throw a tantrum via your lawyers. They've granted "home viewing", | > end of story. | | I'm not convinced that this is true. I think the courts may see things | differently. For one thing, Title 17 seems to consider "access" as | certainly governed by copyright, and copyright doesn't get relinquished | just because you paid money for something. | | At any rate, it doesn't matter. No one is being sued for infringing access, | only trafficking in circumvention tech. As near as I can see, CSS doesn't enforce the access control matching one's purchase of the disc. CSS prevents one playing on a "non-approved" player. Arguably, the only valid access control a vendor should exert is viewing by a "non-approved" person. Is the fact that the access control is unrelated to the purchaser a way to argue that the CSS stuff is not "valid" in some way, being not related to the "permission" one obtains by buying a DVD? The letter of 1201 doesn't seem to say that the "access control" has to permit legitimate use by the purchaser, but I'd think you could argue that validating an access control which actively prevents a form of legitimate use is a grossly undesirable thing for a court to do. -- Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 cs@zip.com.au http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 09:45:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA08801 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:45:55 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA08684 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:45:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id QAA10628 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:46:32 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:46:31 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] discrediting CSS as an access control (was: 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate) In-Reply-To: <20000223131243.A3100@ramires.research.canon.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Cameron Simpson wrote: >Is the fact that the access control is unrelated to the purchaser a way >to argue that the CSS stuff is not "valid" in some way, being not >related to the "permission" one obtains by buying a DVD? This might have to do with the authority part of 1201(a)(3)(A) as authority is granted for viewing/decryption upon purchase regardless of the player. The problem is, it can be argued that DeCSS removes CSS and authority for that is not granted under any condition. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 09:48:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA09325 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:48:14 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA09322 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:48:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id QAA10944 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:48:51 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:48:50 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Ignore earlier post fat fingersRe: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: <200002230621.WAA17159@ns1.filetron.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: >> (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to >> a >> work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its >> operation, >> requires the application of information, or a process or a >> treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain >> access to the work. > >I'm a little concerned about this. It says the security feature is >recognized to exist if you need to apply some sort of technique with a >license to do so. What counts as a license? I think it does not talk about a licence on the technique but a permission from the copyright owner of the work protected by the technique. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 09:51:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA10087 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:51:57 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA10084 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:51:56 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12Nd9Y-000DXe-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:52:36 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 23 Feb 100 15:52:35 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "Sampo A Syreeni" at Feb 23, 0 04:11:06 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > In the copyright, authority is relinguished to 'descramble' the work, with a > condition that it is used for home viewing. It is arguable that DeCSS > actually permanently 'removes' the protection and possibly for a purpose > other than *just* home viewing. What protection from other uses does CSS provide? There's no technological barrier whatsoever preventing someone from plugging a licensed DVD player into a video beamer and showing scrambled DVDs to thousands of paying customers. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 09:53:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA10671 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:53:58 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA10668 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:53:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 22805 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 14:58:31 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:58:31 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Message-ID: <20000223095831.A22706@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223084332.A22678@linuxpower.org> <20000223090605.O28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223090605.O28173@nacs.net>; from Jason M. Felice on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:06:05AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:06:05AM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:43:32AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:58:38AM +0100, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > It took me a second to realize where I saw your name before. > > Hi. It's a pleasure to meet you. > > > > Team, in case any of you don't know, this is the gentleman > > who wrote the CSS algorithm whitepaper we've been handing around > > the Internet for the last four months. > > > > > > > This just occurred to me: > > > > > > It is possible to write a opensource CSS encryptor, as > > > a standalon program, say for allowing small studios to > > > 'protect' their movies. > > > Such a program is not in danger of violating the anti- > > > circumvention portions of DMCA, as clearly it does > > > _not_ facilitate circumvention, quite to the contrary. > > > ( I'd like to see MPAA try and stop this in court ) > > > > I fail to see why they'd care, at least in court. It doesn't do > > anything to screw around with their copyrights. > > I think the point he's trying to make is that if we produced DVD media which > was CSS encoded, then distributed it, not only the MPAA is the "authority", > but we are an "authority" as well, able to grant use of DeCSS, so long as we > own the copyright on the work we are distributing. AHHHHH.. little light bulb just came on over my head. Damn, that's slick. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 09:56:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA12116 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:56:56 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA12112 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:56:55 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12NdEL-00023C-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:57:33 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:57:33 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > What protection from other uses does CSS provide? There's no technological > barrier whatsoever preventing someone from plugging a licensed DVD player > into a video beamer and showing scrambled DVDs to thousands of paying > customers. > > Sham Except for the fact that some video projectors choke on the Macrovision (2?) signal distortion. If this is by design, or by accident I don't know. frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:07:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA16079 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:07:00 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA16075 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:06:58 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id RAA14195 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:07:37 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:07:36 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program In-Reply-To: <20000223090605.O28173@nacs.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Jason M. Felice wrote: >I think the point he's trying to make is that if we produced DVD media which >was CSS encoded, then distributed it, not only the MPAA is the "authority", >but we are an "authority" as well, able to grant use of DeCSS, so long as we >own the copyright on the work we are distributing. Does not work. 1201(a)(2)(A): is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; The language on 'primary' purpose and the fact that DeCSS was created when no non-DVD Video CSS applications existed (i.e. when the authorisation was not there) kills this. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:10:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA17601 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:10:08 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA17596 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:10:06 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id RAA14703 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:10:45 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:10:44 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: >> The only logical hole is the authority part above. Do we need authority from >> the copyright owner in the ordinary course of operation of CSS? Somehow it >> feels like the copyright owner has nothing to do with what 1201(a)(2-3) aim >> at. Did somebody confuse the legistlative equivalent of DVD CCA with the >> copyright owner at some stage? Or is there some chain of delegation which >> somehow transfers the 'authority' of the copyright owner to the CCA? > >And how does this apply to public domain material 'protected' by CSS ? In >these cases there doesn't even exist a copyright owner capable of granting >'authority' to access the works. No copyright owner, no copyright. Since 1201 only claims to cover 'work protected under this title', the point is moot. On the other hand, the bulk of DVDs available *are* under copyright and strictly monitored - the language on primary purpose kicks in, then. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:13:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18684 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:13:21 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA18679 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:13:19 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id RAA14981 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:13:57 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:13:57 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 22 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: >Maybe it would be helpful to provide examples of interpreted languages such >as BASIC. The code is meaningless to the processor, it provides >instructions which are executed by a program (interpreter). It may or not be >something of a stretch to call an MPEG player an interpreter for MPEG files, >which after all contain instructions on colour which pixel should be when. The best counter argument relies on Turing completeness - only true programming languages posses this property. LISP, prolog, occam and all the datalog languages do, so eventhough they are highly unconventional, they cannot be used as counter examples. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:15:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19342 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:15:11 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19336 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:15:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id RAA15119 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:15:48 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:15:47 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] just my 2 cents (in whatever currency is most In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: >So how is 'execution' defined in this context? As I've said before if >interpreted programs fall under this definition, then MPEG code, which >instructs the MPEG player on what colour to make which pixel when could also >be seen to be 'executed'. This is far too broad. It would imply that whatever you type on a keyboard is software and is executed. How about typing a novel? Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:19:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA21217 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:19:58 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA21132 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:19:57 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12NdaW-0004Hr-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:20:29 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:20:28 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Patent issues Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There is real possibility that the CSS (encryption) / DeCSS process with multiple keys etc.. is patented. I have heard of a European, and a Japanese patent, but nothing CSS related from the US patent office so far. If the MPAA brings these patent issues to court, would that be capable of undermining our claims of 'authority' ? MPAA: Yes, we know that Nosferatu is not copyrighted, but look the defendends are providing means for access of said work in violation of US patent xxx.yyyy.zzz ( some unknown number ). My immedeate thoughs is that this would have to be brought up in seperate case... I guess it is just may turn to play the Devils a.. frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:21:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA21801 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:21:47 -0500 Received: from dial80.roadrunner.com (dial80.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA21747 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:21:43 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial80.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA00967 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:25:05 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:25:04 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] discrediting CSS as an access control (was: 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate) Message-ID: <20000223082504.A871@localhost> References: <20000219181142.20016.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000221094651.W11768@linuxpower.org> <20000223131243.A3100@ramires.research.canon.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223131243.A3100@ramires.research.canon.com.au>; from Cameron Simpson on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:12:43PM +1100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:12:43PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: > As near as I can see, CSS doesn't enforce the access control matching one's > purchase of the disc. CSS prevents one playing on a "non-approved" player. This is what 17 USC 1201(a)(2) and (b) do by making it illegal to traffick in access circumvention. > Arguably, the only valid access control a vendor should exert is viewing > by a "non-approved" person. If we are talking about 17 USC 106 -> 120, the only valid access control criteria are venue and copyright status (i.e. public, private may not be regulated). > Is the fact that the access control is unrelated to the purchaser a way > to argue that the CSS stuff is not "valid" in some way, being not 17 USC 1201(a)(3) defines access control as a "technological measure" that is "effective", which in this case means a golden hand-shake or something, not _efficacious_. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:28:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA23796 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:28:47 -0500 Received: from dial80.roadrunner.com (dial80.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA23780 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:28:42 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial80.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA00973 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:32:11 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:32:10 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000223083210.B871@localhost> References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Sham Gardner on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:10:00AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:10:00AM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > (a) Chaplin on DVD. Guess what? Region 1 encoded. Price fixing may > > > just be their undoing. > > > > > > > If these are definitely public domain, then this is a very strong > > point. Congress certainly has no authority to "build a moat filled with > > litigators" around public domain content. > > > > Once again region coding does *not* imply CSS. Is anyone out there that has > one of these discs and could check? Agreed. But the real question is what's the copyright status of the picture frames. It does change things if public domain material has been CSS'ed, but even if it only has region code, this leaves the MPAA in bind (assuming P.D. picture frames). (i) MPAA says, "yeah, regions codes are an access control mechanism". Boom! 1201(a)(2) and (b) are in deep doo-doo because Congress has put a "moat full of lawyers" around material it has no authority to regulate. It is even possible that 1201(a)(1) would be in trouble, but this I think this unlikely. (ii) MPAA says, "nahh, regions codes are _not_ an access control mechanism." Boom! Counter-suit for restraint of trade. We really need to determine the status of the _picture frames_. Not the work as a whole. The work as a whole contains new material. We want to know the copyright status of _just_ the <1923 motion picture frames. I know how to find the status of the work as whole, but I'm not sure how to do it for the frames. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:31:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24978 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:31:02 -0500 Received: from mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (ftp1.imagine-sw.com [206.232.17.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24974 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:31:01 -0500 Received: from metermaid.imagine_ny.com (metermaid [192.9.201.29]) by mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA24565 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:34:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from imagine-sw.com by metermaid.imagine_ny.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16912; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:31:01 -0500 Message-ID: <38B3FD35.4C114C84@imagine-sw.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:31:01 -0500 From: Francisco Figueirido Organization: Imagine Software, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] just my 2 cents (in whatever currency is mostdevalued today:-) References: <200002230651.WAA18994@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: > Certainly anything that can be executed is software. Scripts, machine code, markup code. A recording of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is not software unless you can prove its use by the military to program soldiers. > Unlikely. > I beg to differ. If I feed a recording of `The Good, The Bad and The Ugly' to a CPU (that is, I interpret the bytes/words as machine instructions), the CPU will execute them. Of course, many of them will correspond to illegal instructions or jumps to oblivion. But is that the point? Is `software' to be defined in terms of doing something `useful'? And what is `useful'? (Is programming soldiers useful?). Moreover, if this or that CPU chokes on this copy, that doesn't invalidate the point since one can imagine (a gedanken experiment) a CPU for which ALL words are legal instructions (probably redundant). Under this `definition' any sequence of bytes, or words, or even bits should be considered `software.' One more thought. If I give you a binary file, how do you know whether it is software or not? Maybe `being software' should not be thought of as a property of the collection of bits, but in relation to `what executes this.' (Which, again, might lead to the conclusion that any collection of bits is `software' for some, probably hypothetical, execution unit). I bet discussions like this were going on in the early days (von Neumann, Turing, etc.). Anybody knows? -- Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com 400 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10017 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:36:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA28425 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:36:47 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA28405 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:36:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 22901 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 15:41:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:41:22 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000223104122.B22706@linuxpower.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Sampo A Syreeni on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:13:57PM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:13:57PM +0200, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > >Maybe it would be helpful to provide examples of interpreted languages such > >as BASIC. The code is meaningless to the processor, it provides > >instructions which are executed by a program (interpreter). It may or not be > >something of a stretch to call an MPEG player an interpreter for MPEG files, > >which after all contain instructions on colour which pixel should be when. > > The best counter argument relies on Turing completeness - only true > programming languages posses this property. LISP, prolog, occam and all the > datalog languages do, so eventhough they are highly unconventional, they > cannot be used as counter examples. I had to go back and look up "Turing completeness". It's been awhile. But couldn't this, in theory, also help to draw the line between what constitutes a "program" and what does not? It seems to me that Turing completeness would effectively decide whether something qualifies as a "program", and therefore qualifies under the reverse engineering exemption to 1201. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:38:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA28850 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:38:24 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA28846 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:38:23 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA11627 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:39:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B3FED8.F0A347C2@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:38:00 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program References: <20000223084332.A22678@linuxpower.org> <20000223090605.O28173@nacs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > I think the point he's trying to make is that if we produced DVD media which > was CSS encoded, then distributed it, not only the MPAA is the "authority", > but we are an "authority" as well, able to grant use of DeCSS, so long as we > own the copyright on the work we are distributing. > That might be tough. CSS encryption is added to the DVD image during the process of transferring the data from the source tape to the LBR (Laser Beam Recorder). The LBR is the big honkin $$$$ machine that "writes" with laser pulses to a layer of photoresist on a glass master - the first step in creating stampers to stamp out polycarbonate DVDs. The market for LBR control SW (including the addition of CSS encryption) is pretty well locked up (mostly because it is not trivial to create LBR control SW), and any replication plant already making DVDs has it - and a CSS license. But I think there's a point you're missing here - the MPAA has nothing to do with CSS. They have no authority to grant its use. CSS belongs to the DVD CCA. The MPAA's members' content is "protected" by it. The MPAA's only "authority" is to act on behalf of its members' copyrights. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:40:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29491 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:40:14 -0500 Received: from dial80.roadrunner.com (dial80.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29487 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:40:12 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial80.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA01022 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:43:35 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:43:33 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Ignore earlier post fat fingersRe: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000223084333.C871@localhost> References: <200002230621.WAA17159@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Sampo A Syreeni on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:48:50PM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:48:50PM +0200, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: > > >> (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to > >> a > >> work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its > >> operation, > >> requires the application of information, or a process or a > >> treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain > >> access to the work. > > > >I'm a little concerned about this. It says the security feature is > >recognized to exist if you need to apply some sort of technique with a > >license to do so. What counts as a license? > > I think it does not talk about a licence on the technique but a permission > from the copyright owner of the work protected by the technique. My suspicion is that the "authority" required in 1201(a)(3) is the same "authorization" required in 17 USC 106. 106 is about public performance, and private is out of scope. Basically, private "performance" is part of fair use (yes, fair use includes things other than duplication into a tangible medium). My expectation for this law is that home viewing is "authorized" by fair use (i.e. 1201(c) paraphrase -> no impact on fair use), the copyright holder can never revoke private performance. Yes, there is huge problem with 1201(a)(2) and (b) because trafficking is not covered by "fair use". The law is broken. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:43:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA30746 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:43:47 -0500 Received: from dial80.roadrunner.com (dial80.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA30694 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:43:45 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial80.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA01028 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:47:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:47:10 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] just my 2 cents (in whatever currency is most Message-ID: <20000223084710.D871@localhost> References: <200002230651.WAA18994@ns1.filetron.com> <20000222235643.C11658@duskglow.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000222235643.C11658@duskglow.com>; from Russell Miller on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:56:43PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:56:43PM -0800, Russell Miller wrote: > I think the distinction between "execution" is best put as whether the data > is used as a control or as a dataset. And even this is blurry. So let me > talk out of my ass for a bit: > > Example: > > Computer code = executed > Emulated computer code = executed OR data. > because the emulated code is data to the emulator, but to the data > it uses (under emulation) it's a program. > MPEG = data > because MPEG is an encoding of external real-world stuff. > Your example about MPEGs being a program, well... the MPEG doesn't > actually turn ON the pixel, it just encodes the information so the > player can do it and represent it reasonably faithfully to what was > input. the player/software is still doing the work. > DVD video = data > because the actual video is meant to be "played". > DVD control program = executed > because the hardware executes this code as instructions. > though the argument could be made, and with some degree of accuracy, > that it is also data, because it is not EXECUTED, but merely provides > information for control flow. > DVD executable code = executed. > > It could be argued that a DVD is both data and software for this reason. How about, "DVD is basically an executable file format with a data segment definition. Yes the data segment is often larger than .bss, but they are both there. Take either one out, and the executable is broken." Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:43:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA30750 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:43:51 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA30747 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:43:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 8270 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 15:44:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223154423.8269.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:44:23 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:44:23 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > [...] You may engineer a computer > > program replacement, but by doing so you don't magically get a > > copyright licence. > > Bryan, forgive me if I'm misreading this, but it's unclear. Are you > stating that copyright protection is not magicalily given to the > program replacement? If so, you're wrong. Any written work is > automatically under copyright in the United States. [...] No, I'm talking about the copyright licence to the data files, not to the reverse engineered program. DeCSS is copyrighted under the GPL, I believe. I'm saying that the last phrase of 1201(f)(2) which limits the exception to non-infringing uses means that you couldn't make your own software listener to decrypt a hypothetical internet broadcast of a movie, because you don't have a licence to view the movie in the first place. With DVD, you have licenced the movie copyright, so this limit on the exception doesn't apply. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:46:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31610 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:46:51 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31607 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:46:49 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00561 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:46:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:46:08 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Message-ID: <20000223104608.R28173@nacs.net> References: <20000223090605.O28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:07:36PM +0200, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > >I think the point he's trying to make is that if we produced DVD media which > >was CSS encoded, then distributed it, not only the MPAA is the "authority", > >but we are an "authority" as well, able to grant use of DeCSS, so long as we > >own the copyright on the work we are distributing. > > Does not work. 1201(a)(2)(A): > > is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of > circumventing a technological measure that effectively > controls access to a work protected under this title; > > > The language on 'primary' purpose and the fact that DeCSS was > created when no non-DVD Video CSS applications existed (i.e. when the > authorisation was not there) kills this. I doubt that it would still be illegal if a copyright owner gave authorization to use it. If DVDCCA gave authorization for arbitrary third party players, would there still be a case? In any case, we then simply reverse-engineer the CSS encryption again. > > Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:47:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31733 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:47:47 -0500 Received: from dial80.roadrunner.com (dial80.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31730 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:47:44 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial80.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA01035 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:51:13 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:51:12 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000223085111.E871@localhost> References: <200002230700.XAA19415@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002230700.XAA19415@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:00:48PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:00:48PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Dana Parker wrote: > >Rares Marian wrote: > > > >> It doesn't go both ways. I have viewed DVDs in the traditional manner. No Gimmicks, just the movie. > > > >Just because you didn't consciously interact with the program commands does not mean that the program and the > >commands aren't there. The movie doesn't play without the program. You can't view it without the program. The > >program tells the player to play the movie, even if you only play it straight through with no "gimmicks". > > So in effect you boot the DVD-Player off the DVD? Hmm... they should have called it DVDfs since CSS serves as the header to a filesystem. Hmmm..... The description of DVDs I'm about 1/4 of the way throught says that actual file system is iso9660. I'm not sure yet, but it seems like the .vob is related to an object file format, with the special contraint that segments are time-ordered. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:51:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00356 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:51:14 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA00326 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:51:11 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00582 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:50:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:50:30 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Message-ID: <20000223105029.S28173@nacs.net> References: <20000223084332.A22678@linuxpower.org> <20000223090605.O28173@nacs.net> <38B3FED8.F0A347C2@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38B3FED8.F0A347C2@cdpage.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Dana Parker wrote: > "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > > > I think the point he's trying to make is that if we produced DVD media which > > was CSS encoded, then distributed it, not only the MPAA is the "authority", > > but we are an "authority" as well, able to grant use of DeCSS, so long as we > > own the copyright on the work we are distributing. > > > > That might be tough. CSS encryption is added to the DVD image during the process of > transferring the data from the source tape to the LBR (Laser Beam Recorder). The LBR > is the big honkin $$$$ machine that "writes" with laser pulses to a layer of > photoresist on a glass master - the first step in creating stampers to stamp out > polycarbonate DVDs. The market for LBR control SW (including the addition of CSS > encryption) is pretty well locked up (mostly because it is not trivial to create LBR > control SW), and any replication plant already making DVDs has it - and a CSS > license. DVD-Recordable has already hit the market, no? Sure, blank media is like 3 times the cost of a DVD produced by a plant, but there is no law saying you can't encrypt your content and sell em. They should still work on normal DVD players.... oh wait, current recording media has the key sector burned out, doesn't it (bastards). So what, we don't need it to work on normal players (although I had hoped that we could produce a 'Support the EFF' DVD and sell it for effect). > > But I think there's a point you're missing here - the MPAA has nothing to do with > CSS. They have no authority to grant its use. CSS belongs to the DVD CCA. The MPAA's > members' content is "protected" by it. The MPAA's only "authority" is to act on > behalf of its members' copyrights. > -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 10:53:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00871 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:53:43 -0500 Received: from dial80.roadrunner.com (dial80.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA00867 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:53:40 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial80.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA01041 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:57:06 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:57:05 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Message-ID: <20000223085705.F871@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Frank Andrew Stevenson on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:58:38AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:58:38AM +0100, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > > This just occurred to me: > > It is possible to write a opensource CSS encryptor, as > a standalon program, say for allowing small studios to > 'protect' their movies. > Such a program is not in danger of violating the anti- > circumvention portions of DMCA, as clearly it does > _not_ facilitate circumvention, quite to the contrary. > ( I'd like to see MPAA try and stop this in court ) > > Secondly it will then have been established that CSS > encryptor is a program, and the interoperability issue > can then be established, except for the fact that NO > reverse engeneering will be needed. > > If a stand alone CSS encryptor would acomplish anything > in court, I'd be willing to write it. Even if it doesn't > accomplish anything legaly, it would greatly enhance the > reddening of the MPAAs faces. > > frank There was a suggestion a few days ago, that if the successor to the DVD-CCA (organization name anyone?) _really_ wants complete encryption of all content, we should slam the lid of this Pandora's box on their fingers. Make the studios deal with encrypted content from the artists. I would not go run off and start working on the project, but this is definitely a viable proposal, for at least two reasons: (i) Make MPAA members play on the same field as the public. (ii) Demonstrate interoperatibility between DeCSS and DoCSS. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:00:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03058 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:00:00 -0500 Received: from dial80.roadrunner.com (dial80.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA03006 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:59:57 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial80.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA01051 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:03:23 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:03:22 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Patent issues Message-ID: <20000223090322.G871@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Frank Andrew Stevenson on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:20:28PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > > There is real possibility that the CSS (encryption) / DeCSS process with > multiple keys etc.. is patented. I have heard of a European, and a > Japanese patent, but nothing CSS related from the US patent office so far. > If the MPAA brings these patent issues to court, would that be capable of > undermining our claims of 'authority' ? > > MPAA: Yes, we know that Nosferatu is not copyrighted, but look the > defendends are providing means for access of said work in violation > of US patent xxx.yyyy.zzz ( some unknown number ). > > My immedeate thoughs is that this would have to be brought up in seperate > case... I guess it is just may turn to play the Devils a.. Two points: (i) I don't remember the ref, but the supreme court has said you can't use one patent to require licensing of a second patent. Patents are not unlimitedly big sticks. Trying to regulate 1st amendment protected aspects of fair use (private performance) with patents is likely to run into problems. (ii) For some strange reason, the NY case doesn't mention the patent. Someone else speculated about a week ago that this meant the patent was on a weak footing. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:03:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA05890 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:03:38 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA05887 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:03:37 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12NeGt-00071q-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:04:15 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:04:15 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program In-Reply-To: <38B3FED8.F0A347C2@cdpage.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Dana Parker wrote: > But I think there's a point you're missing here - the MPAA has nothing to > do with CSS. They have no authority to grant its use. CSS belongs to > the DVD CCA. The MPAA's members' content is "protected" by it. The > MPAA's only "authority" is to act on behalf of its members' copyrights. There is some schizm here that needs to be explored, the law says that the viewing has to be authorized by the copyright holders ( ie. the MPAA ), while the technology requires ( a purchased player ) authorization by the DVD CCA, so unless DVD CCA derives its authority from the _each_and_everyone_ of the various copyright holders, all DVD players are in violation of DMCA. The DVD CCA is a not-for-profit organization, presumably under the influence of the MPAA, so the DVD CCA might inderectly grant authority to view a CSS-DVD, although this is not spelled out anywhere. Perhaps we should investigate how this transferral of 'authority' is spelled out in the contract between DVD CCA and the various content providers. I don't know what this means, but it reeks of monopoly ( can't publish CCS content unless DVD CCA likes your face ), and product tying ( You may watch our movies, but on the condition you buy a player from vendor X,Y or Z, but under no circumstances use vendor L.) frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:06:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06861 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:06:10 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06856 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:06:07 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12NeJK-0006H4-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:06:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 23 Feb 100 17:06:46 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "Frank Andrew Stevenson" at Feb 23, 0 03:57:33 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > On Wed, 23 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > What protection from other uses does CSS provide? There's no technological > > barrier whatsoever preventing someone from plugging a licensed DVD player > > into a video beamer and showing scrambled DVDs to thousands of paying > > customers. > > > > Sham > > Except for the fact that some video projectors choke on the Macrovision > (2?) signal distortion. If this is by design, or by accident I don't > know. Maybe, but macrovision has nothign to do with CSS and they haven't gone after macrovision hacks. Also as you say only some video projectors have problems, as do some TV sets for that matter. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:09:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07617 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:09:07 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA07612 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:09:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 5217 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 16:05:05 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 16:05:05 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA29740; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:09:42 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:09:42 -0800 Message-Id: <200002231609.IAA29740@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Software and data Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sampo A Syreeni wrote: >On Wed, 23 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > >>So how is 'execution' defined in this context? As I've said before if >>interpreted programs fall under this definition, then MPEG code, which >>instructs the MPEG player on what colour to make which pixel when could also >>be seen to be 'executed'. MPEG data is lossly compressed content, it does not tell the player what content to put up. The instruction for putting color on screen is in the player. The MPEG file does nothing. It's just data. Here's my definition: Software is as I said a bunch of instructions. An instruction is something that takes a value from somewhere else implicitly or explicitly to perform some task. Machine code, interpreted code, database code(not the data itself), falls into this category. Which brings up something else: Machine code is a mix of code and parameters (data without which the code couldn't function). The format goes something like this (simplistic but not that much): operation, src location, src2 location,, destination location. Some code looks like just operation, but in fact it depends on special locations where second order parameters (used in comparisons against internal information) have been loaded. So contrary to some of the arguments here, the CPU does in fact make distinctions about what is code and what is a parameter. It does this because the traces from the input into the CPU spread out to different internal units. It's just a handy thing to be able to load large blocks of code into memory to run it. That's why people confuse it with data. Data in a picture, sound file, or a database (as opposed to SQL code) can't do anything on it's own. Any attempt to load database data to the screen will yield garbage. Any attempt to play an MPEG to your sound card will result in anything from nothing to possible deafness for you, your family, and possibly your dog too. >This is far too broad. It would imply that whatever you type on a keyboard >is software and is executed. How about typing a novel? That wasn't what I intended. >Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:10:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA08177 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:10:10 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA08156 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:10:08 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00677 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:09:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:09:24 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000223110923.T28173@nacs.net> References: <20000223104122.B22706@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223104122.B22706@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 10:41:22AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:13:57PM +0200, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > > > >Maybe it would be helpful to provide examples of interpreted languages such > > >as BASIC. The code is meaningless to the processor, it provides > > >instructions which are executed by a program (interpreter). It may or not be > > >something of a stretch to call an MPEG player an interpreter for MPEG files, > > >which after all contain instructions on colour which pixel should be when. > > > > The best counter argument relies on Turing completeness - only true > > programming languages posses this property. LISP, prolog, occam and all the > > datalog languages do, so eventhough they are highly unconventional, they > > cannot be used as counter examples. > > I had to go back and look up "Turing completeness". It's been awhile. But > couldn't this, in theory, also help to draw the line between what constitutes > a "program" and what does not? It seems to me that Turing completeness would > effectively decide whether something qualifies as a "program", and therefore > qualifies under the reverse engineering exemption to 1201. >From the description of Turing Completeness which I found and my understanding of the DVD linking language, it is theoretically possible to create a Turing Complete DVD video which can solve arbitrary arithmetic problems. Given a copy of the specification for the DVD linking language (I hope this isn't "Trade Secret" as well) or other descriptive reference, I will be happy to provide analysis and an instructive essay describing the resulting program. Turing Completeness, as described by Veit Hagenmeyer, Berkeley: http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/~eal/ee290n/lec18.scribe.html > > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:12:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA08800 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:12:02 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA08797 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:12:00 -0500 Received: (qmail 22995 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 16:16:36 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:16:36 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Message-ID: <20000223111636.C22706@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223154423.8269.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223154423.8269.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 07:44:23AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 07:44:23AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > [...] You may engineer a computer > > > program replacement, but by doing so you don't magically get a > > > copyright licence. > > > > Bryan, forgive me if I'm misreading this, but it's unclear. Are you > > stating that copyright protection is not magicalily given to the > > program replacement? If so, you're wrong. Any written work is > > automatically under copyright in the United States. [...] > > No, I'm talking about the copyright licence to the data files, not to > the reverse engineered program. DeCSS is copyrighted under the GPL, I > believe. I'm saying that the last phrase of 1201(f)(2) which limits the > exception to non-infringing uses means that you couldn't make your own > software listener to decrypt a hypothetical internet broadcast of a > movie, because you don't have a licence to view the movie in the first > place. With DVD, you have licenced the movie copyright, so this limit > on the exception doesn't apply. The text of USC 1201(f)(2): "(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 identification 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." You keep rationalizing past the "for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs" part, without which none of this clause applies. As Dana pointed out, the interactive nature of DVD media could technically constitute a "program", even while "CSS" (as a scrambling method) does not. Is this the "other program" you believe the independently created computer program enables interoperability with? Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:14:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09391 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:14:06 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA09352 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:14:03 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00706 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:13:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:13:19 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000223111319.U28173@nacs.net> References: <200002230700.XAA19415@ns1.filetron.com> <20000223085111.E871@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223085111.E871@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:51:12AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:00:48PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > > Dana Parker wrote: > > >Rares Marian wrote: > > > > > >> It doesn't go both ways. I have viewed DVDs in the traditional manner. No Gimmicks, just the movie. > > > > > >Just because you didn't consciously interact with the program commands does not mean that the program and the > > >commands aren't there. The movie doesn't play without the program. You can't view it without the program. The > > >program tells the player to play the movie, even if you only play it straight through with no "gimmicks". > > > > So in effect you boot the DVD-Player off the DVD? Hmm... they should have called it DVDfs since CSS serves as the header to a filesystem. Hmmm..... > > The description of DVDs I'm about 1/4 of the way throught says that > actual file system is iso9660. I'm not sure yet, but it seems like > the .vob is related to an object file format, with the special contraint > that segments are time-ordered. The DVD filesystem is a descendent of iso9660. Some words size(s) determined for iso9660 were inadequate for the capacity of a DVD. The file format is encrypted MPEG-2, which is a streaming format with multiple streams block-interleaved. I'm not sure how compression is determined. > > > > > Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:14:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09755 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:14:48 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA09752 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:14:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 5682 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 16:10:47 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 16:10:47 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA30424; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:15:25 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:15:25 -0800 Message-Id: <200002231615.IAA30424@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Ignore earlier post fat fingersRe: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: >On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:48:50PM +0200, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: >> >> >> (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to >> >> a >> >> work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its >> >> operation, >> >> requires the application of information, or a process or a >> >> treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain >> >> access to the work. >> > >> >I'm a little concerned about this. It says the security feature is >> >recognized to exist if you need to apply some sort of technique with a >> >license to do so. What counts as a license? >> >> I think it does not talk about a licence on the technique but a permission >> from the copyright owner of the work protected by the technique. > >My suspicion is that the "authority" required in 1201(a)(3) is the same >"authorization" required in 17 USC 106. 106 is about public performance, >and private is out of scope. Basically, private "performance" is part >of fair use (yes, fair use includes things other than duplication >into a tangible medium). > >My expectation for this law is that home viewing is "authorized" by >fair use (i.e. 1201(c) paraphrase -> no impact on fair use), the >copyright holder can never revoke private performance. > >Yes, there is huge problem with 1201(a)(2) and (b) because trafficking >is not covered by "fair use". The law is broken. Trafficking the device cannot be illegal. It's very legal to sell info on how to build a descrambler, it's very legal to make devices that descramble. It is legal to sell those devices. It is not legal to make use of them against copyrighted content. >Paul Fenimore Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:16:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10813 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:16:38 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10806 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:16:34 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA29849 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:17:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B407CE.5C72EBD9@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:16:14 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <200002230700.XAA19415@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A3EAA665FAC74595DAC08F60" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --------------A3EAA665FAC74595DAC08F60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rares Marian wrote: > So in effect you boot the DVD-Player off the DVD? Hmm... they should have called it DVDfs since CSS serves as the header to a filesystem. Hmmm..... > > Think of it this way - playing the movie straight through with no gimmicks uses the default program. If you interact with the program in any way - say, you jump to a chapter, fast forward, change the language or turn on the subtitles - you are choosing variables that alter the program from the default. CSS is not the header to a file system. The file system used on DVD is UDF - Universal Disk Format. DVD Video is the application layer. CSS encrypts DVD Video (it doesn't work on just any old data on DVD). -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com --------------A3EAA665FAC74595DAC08F60 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rares Marian wrote:

So in effect you boot the DVD-Player off the DVD?  Hmm... they should have called it DVDfs since CSS serves as the header to a filesystem.  Hmmm.....
 
 

Think of it this way - playing the movie straight through with no gimmicks uses the default program.  If you interact with the program in any way - say, you jump to a chapter, fast forward, change the language or turn on the subtitles - you are choosing variables that alter the program from the default.

CSS is not the header to a file system. The file system used on DVD is UDF - Universal Disk Format. DVD Video is the application layer. CSS encrypts DVD Video (it doesn't work on just any old data on DVD).
 
 
 

--
Dana J. Parker
Consultant
http://www.cdpage.com
Contributing editor/standards columnist
Emedia magazine
http://www.emediapro.net
DVD PRO Conference Chair
http://www.dvdpro.net
I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression
http://www.eff.org/cafe

mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com
  --------------A3EAA665FAC74595DAC08F60-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:23:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA13913 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:23:02 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA13903 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:23:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 6194 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 16:19:01 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 16:19:01 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA31351; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:23:38 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:23:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200002231623.IAA31351@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Whoa No Demos, yet. Let's not get carried away. Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: >On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:58:38AM +0100, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: >> >> This just occurred to me: >> >> It is possible to write a opensource CSS encryptor, as >> a standalon program, say for allowing small studios to >> 'protect' their movies. >> Such a program is not in danger of violating the anti- >> circumvention portions of DMCA, as clearly it does >> _not_ facilitate circumvention, quite to the contrary. >> ( I'd like to see MPAA try and stop this in court ) >> >> Secondly it will then have been established that CSS >> encryptor is a program, and the interoperability issue >> can then be established, except for the fact that NO >> reverse engeneering will be needed. >> >> If a stand alone CSS encryptor would acomplish anything >> in court, I'd be willing to write it. Even if it doesn't >> accomplish anything legaly, it would greatly enhance the >> reddening of the MPAAs faces. >> >> frank > > >There was a suggestion a few days ago, that if the successor >to the DVD-CCA (organization name anyone?) _really_ wants >complete encryption of all content, we should slam the lid >of this Pandora's box on their fingers. > >Make the studios deal with encrypted content from the artists. > >I would not go run off and start working on the project, but this >is definitely a viable proposal, for at least two reasons: >(i) Make MPAA members play on the same field as the public. >(ii) Demonstrate interoperatibility between DeCSS and DoCSS. Not yet. In any case until we take them out of the sandbox they're playing in, any demo could screw us. Kaplan wouldn't take one second before he extrapolated the possibility of DoCSS proving DeCSS is circumvention. C'mon, we're getting to excited. We need to stay calm, cold, and fight them. Being clever doesn't cut it. And yes I know, the slam the lid idea was a response to one of my own ideas. I'm willing to abstain from that until we're in the clear. >Paul Fenimore Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:28:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA15817 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:28:14 -0500 Received: from dial201.roadrunner.com (dial201.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.201]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA15775 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:28:11 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial201.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA01183 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:31:34 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:31:33 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000223093133.B1055@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Sampo A Syreeni on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:10:44PM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:10:44PM +0200, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > No copyright owner, no copyright. Since 1201 only claims to cover 'work > protected under this title', the point is moot. On the other hand, the bulk > of DVDs available *are* under copyright and strictly monitored - the > language on primary purpose kicks in, then. People keep talking about "primary purpose". As far as I can tell the only issues are "effective" and with "authority". "Effective" in the context of 1201 means a golden handshake, not "efficacious". "Authority" might mean one of two things, but is probably the same authority in 17 U.S.C. 106. No where do I see "primary purpose". What am I missing? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:34:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA19445 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:34:37 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA19441 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:34:36 -0500 Received: (qmail 23036 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 16:39:11 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:39:11 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Ignore earlier post fat fingersRe: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000223113911.E22706@linuxpower.org> References: <200002231615.IAA30424@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002231615.IAA30424@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:15:25AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:15:25AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > >Yes, there is huge problem with 1201(a)(2) and (b) because trafficking > >is not covered by "fair use". The law is broken. > > Trafficking the device cannot be illegal. Text of USC 17 Section 1201(a)(2): " (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that - (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." "import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic" seems to be a pretty good description of banning the trafficking of a device. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:35:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20364 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:35:42 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20275 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:35:39 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00779 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:34:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:34:45 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software and data Message-ID: <20000223113445.V28173@nacs.net> References: <200002231609.IAA29740@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002231609.IAA29740@ns1.filetron.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:09:42AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > >On Wed, 23 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > > >>So how is 'execution' defined in this context? As I've said before if > >>interpreted programs fall under this definition, then MPEG code, which > >>instructs the MPEG player on what colour to make which pixel when could also > >>be seen to be 'executed'. > > MPEG data is lossly compressed content, it does not tell the player what content to put up. The instruction for putting color on screen is in the player. The MPEG file does nothing. It's just data. > > Here's my definition: > > Software is as I said a bunch of instructions. An instruction is something that takes a value from somewhere else implicitly or explicitly to perform some task. Machine code, interpreted code, database code(not the data itself), falls into this category. Which brings up something else: > > Machine code is a mix of code and parameters (data without which the code couldn't function). The format goes something like this (simplistic but not that much): operation, src location, src2 location,, destination location. Some code looks like just operation, but in fact it depends on special locations where second order parameters (used in comparisons against internal information) have been loaded. What about NOP? Or NOOP, depending on platform. Hehe. > > So contrary to some of the arguments here, the CPU does in fact make distinctions about what is code and what is a parameter. It does this because the traces from the input into the CPU spread out to different internal units. It's just a handy thing to be able to load large blocks of code into memory to run it. That's why people confuse it with data. Then scripting languages fail your definition, as the CPU identifies Java bytecode, perl bytecode, python bytecode (Is python sub-compiled?) as data. Java bytecode may, in the presence of a JIT translator, be treated by the CPU as code, but it need not be. Then there is the Transmeta Crusoe, where the aforementioned processor instructions are treated as data. Not to mention that the processor instructions are eventually interpreted as data by whatever bare-metal hardware executes them. If you look over some of the material about Turing machines and Turing completeness, you will see that all computers treat all input as data on the most basic level. It becomes evident that "code" is an artificial distinction designed by we programmers for purposes of discussion; therefore, the Turing Completeness test is by far the best way to go about this. Turing completeness (I mentioned a URL earlier) specifies the most minimal and basic functional requirements of a computing device, which you can argue that a programming language is. > > Data in a picture, sound file, or a database (as opposed to SQL code) can't do anything on it's own. Any attempt to load database data to the screen will yield garbage. Any attempt to play an MPEG to your sound card will result in anything from nothing to possible deafness for you, your family, and possibly your dog too. There are hardware MPEG cards. The CPU on the card interprets MPEG data. > > >This is far too broad. It would imply that whatever you type on a keyboard > >is software and is executed. How about typing a novel? > > That wasn't what I intended. > > >Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > > > Rares > ---------------------- > Do you do Linux? :) > Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:44:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA24783 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:44:35 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24780 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:44:34 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA15331 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:45:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B40E5D.504E36E3@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:44:14 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > There is some schizm here that needs to be explored, the law says that the > viewing has to be authorized by the copyright holders ( ie. the MPAA ), > while the technology requires ( a purchased player ) authorization by the > DVD CCA, so unless DVD CCA derives its authority from the > _each_and_everyone_ of the various copyright holders, all DVD players are > in violation of DMCA. > > The DVD CCA is a not-for-profit organization, presumably under the > influence of the MPAA, so the DVD CCA might inderectly grant authority to > view a CSS-DVD, although this is not spelled out anywhere. Perhaps we > should investigate how this transferral of 'authority' is spelled out in > the contract between DVD CCA and the various content providers. The DVD CCA is, I believe (don't quote me) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Matsushita, the creators of CSS. It was supposed to have been created out of the CPTWG, which was an ad hoc group representing the MPAA, CEMA, ITI and (escapes me now), but it was not. Its sole purpose is to license CSS. CSS was formerly licensed by Matsushita and a department of the Japanese government (whose name also escapes me). All DVD players have licensed CSS. Otherwise, they couldn't play anything encrypted with CSS. > I don't know what this means, but it reeks of monopoly ( can't publish CCS > content unless DVD CCA likes your face ), Sure you can. You send your content to a replicator with a CSS license, and they encrypt it and put it on a disc. > and product tying ( You may > watch our movies, but on the condition you buy a player from vendor X,Y > or Z, but under no circumstances use vendor L.) If vendor L hasn't paid to license the DVD specs and CSS, that is. Unfortunately, I don't think that's illegal. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:47:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26537 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:47:51 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA26513 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:47:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 8076 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 16:43:49 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 16:43:49 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA02130; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:48:26 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:48:26 -0800 Message-Id: <200002231648.IAA02130@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: OT just to clarify Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: > >--------------A3EAA665FAC74595DAC08F60 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Rares Marian wrote: > >> So in effect you boot the DVD-Player off the DVD? Hmm... they should have called it DVDfs since CSS serves as the header to a filesystem. Hmmm..... >> >> > >Think of it this way - playing the movie straight through with no gimmicks uses the default program. If you interact with the program in any way - say, >you jump to a chapter, fast forward, change the language or turn on the subtitles - you are choosing variables that alter the program from the default. > >CSS is not the header to a file system. The file system used on DVD is UDF - Universal Disk Format. DVD Video is the application layer. CSS encrypts DVD >Video (it doesn't work on just any old data on DVD). Kinda like the extra reserve swapfiles I collect whenever X Window System (with Netscape as its accomplice) starts eating swap space. dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/rares/swap2 bs=1024 count=65536 (make the raw zeroed file) mkswap /home/rares/swap2 (format the file as a swap filesystem which is already on a filysyystem called ext2) swapon /home/rares/swap2 (effectively mount swap2) While it doesn't boot off the key segegment, the collection of keys does function as a header. (all I'm doing is trying to wake my brain this morning.) > > >-- >Dana J. Parker >Consultant >http://www.cdpage.com >Contributing editor/standards columnist >Emedia magazine >http://www.emediapro.net >DVD PRO Conference Chair >http://www.dvdpro.net >I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression >http://www.eff.org/cafe > >mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:48:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26831 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:48:08 -0500 Received: from dial73.roadrunner.com (dial73.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26827 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:48:05 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial73.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA01399 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:51:33 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:51:32 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] OOPS. Message-ID: <20000223095132.A1388@localhost> References: <20000223093133.B1055@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223093133.B1055@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:31:33AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:31:33AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > People keep talking about "primary purpose". As far as I can tell the > only issues are "effective" and with "authority". "Effective" in the > context of 1201 means a golden handshake, not "efficacious". "Authority" > might mean one of two things, but is probably the same authority > in 17 U.S.C. 106. No where do I see "primary purpose". What am I missing? Never mind. I know what I'm missing. Sorry for the trouble. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:48:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27205 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:48:17 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27189 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:48:16 -0500 Received: from [38.32.79.142] (helo=ip142.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12Ney7-00027L-00; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:48:55 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Patent issues Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:48:04 GMT Message-ID: <38b50c35.3844824@mail.tiac.net> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id LAA27202 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:20:28 +0100 (CET), Frank wrote: >MPAA: Yes, we know that Nosferatu is not copyrighted, but look the >defendends are providing means for access of said work in violation >of US patent xxx.yyyy.zzz ( some unknown number ). They would probably state that the original 1922 film version is in the public domain, but the 1998 DVD is now fully copyrighted by Image Entertainment. This new version adds commentary by German silent film historian Lokke Heiss, production notes, and a collection of supplemental materials. This is a major problem for public domain films and recordings--even worse than for books. How many people have access to the original negatives or tapes (or pre-1923 copies?) __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:50:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28318 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:50:31 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28306 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:50:30 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA18373 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:51:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B40FC0.861B5A78@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:50:08 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <200002230700.XAA19415@ns1.filetron.com> <20000223085111.E871@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: > The description of DVDs I'm about 1/4 of the way throught says that > actual file system is iso9660. I'm not sure yet, but it seems like > the .vob is related to an object file format, with the special contraint > that segments are time-ordered. > > > No, it's UDF, or a hybrid of UDF and ISO 9660. They had to do that to make DVD playable on older operating systems with no UDF support. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 11:53:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29251 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:53:27 -0500 Received: from mx01.gis.net (scribe.gis.net [208.218.130.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA29183 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:53:21 -0500 From: breeve@ibm.net Received: from ibm.net (ppp29-196.gis.net [216.41.29.196]) by mx01.gis.net (8.8.8/8.8.8+pyrd) with ESMTP id LAA23401 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:53:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38B41099.2A6D1A43@ibm.net> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:53:45 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Fwd: FAQ Goodness References: <4.1.20000223090455.00d59950@law.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wendy, Rob: I write in response to the email copied in below, received today, for which I thank you. I am a lawyer. Mass. BBO# 558283. I am not sure that it is a "Frequently Asked" Question, but I believe it is an underlying inquiry essential to avoiding an ungodly result in this case, particularly upon appeal, if and when the case goes up; thus I would want to ask, and have the list receive answers to the following query: Let us begin by assuming that the defendant in this case had instead published, on paper, in a book, a discussion of the kind of key-based encoding embodied in the CSS. Few would doubt that there is no DMCA 1201 offense in that act. If nothing else, there is no "circumvent[ing]" going on. Circumvention must be something more than explication. Now let us "advance" the hypothetical facts toward those of the instant matter, and beyond. Suppose defendant instead publishes on the web an ascii text file that describes certain essential previously secret details of the CSS methodology, but which does not include explicit discussion of means that can be implemented to avoid the effects of CSS. Assuming no obligation not to reveal the secret,(thus no liability for that), also again no liability for circumvention. Keep going, moving the facts, until we get to the facts of this case, and beyond, to circumstances in which a defendant makes house calls, traipses across the land Johnny Appleseed style, personally reprogramming dvd units such that thay re not affected by content scrambling. The question, of course, becuse it is of the essence of avoiding the consequence from this case that the DMCA becomes a general license issued to industry deeply to blacken black boxes, and forcibly keep them black, (by the imposition of criminal penalties upon anyone who lightens them), is how to construe "circumvent" properly and usefully narrowly, so that, for examples, a) it requires an actual active act of modification of the emplaced means of "protection", (tellling someone else how doesn't count -- no matter how explicit the telling), b) it only applies to acts that squarely "defeat" the protection, (rather than those that "manage" or do other things to it), or c) the "technological measure that effectively controls access" phrase is properly understood, (not as something as wide as a generic algorithm, but as particular as a certain branch instruction). I was once taught that the best brief is one that the court can use, merely by re-captioning, word for word as its opinion, and I get the sense that some of that teaching applies here and to the comments on the list. (A careful reading of Kaplan's decision further suggests that many of the suggestions being offered, e.g. the "expression" theory, will barely be attended, much less considered for decision). Thank you for doing what you are doing. Benjamin Reeve breeve@ibm.net Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > Members of the dvd-announce list should feel free to contribute questions > or answers to the FAQ in progress by replying to the dvd-discuss list or to > Rob or me. > --Wendy > > --- > Rob Warren (greslin@linuxpower.org) wrote: > > Since the last mention was in the middle of a thread, I thought I'd make > a whole new thread for this. > > I'm in the process of putting together an FAQ for this group. We have new > people coming into this discussion all the time, and the volume is increasing > every day. We're also running over the same ground over and over again. > > If you have ideas for questions, please say so. I think for legitimacy sake > all named contributors to the FAQ should be listed with their true names and > email addresses; this will add a level of responsibility to the FAQ and make > it look less like a bunch of Internet hackers playing lawyer. > > I'm going to work on getting the first rough cut of the FAQ out in the next > couple of days; I'll post the first cut on my personal website and give you > all the URL when it's up. I expect we'll have plenty of arguing to do before > everyone's happy with it. :) > > Some ground rules, let me know what you think: > > 1. Real names and email addresses. Anyone who wishes recognition for their > contributions to this FAQ should accept responsibility for their work. > > 2. The FAQ will not attempt to definitively answer issues that have not > been decided in court. Rather, we will try and present the differing > views in each issue as presented by contributors. > > 3. There should be a disclaimer stating that while we are discussing legal > issues, the vast majority of us are not lawyers, and many of these issues > are still up in the air. (BTW.. anyone out there who *is* a laywer, > please speak up. :)) > > Wendy, feel free to mirror the FAQ once it's reached a point that you feel > comfortable with it being "official". > > Okay. I'm open for comments. > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:01:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA32162 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:01:51 -0500 Received: from smtpproxy1.mitre.org (mbunix.mitre.org [129.83.20.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA32154 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:01:50 -0500 Received: from avsrv2.mitre.org (avsrv2.mitre.org [128.29.154.4]) by smtpproxy1.mitre.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14574 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:02:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from corbu (corbu.mitre.org [128.29.39.95]) by smtpsrv2.mitre.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA13301 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:02:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000223120855.017294f0@mailsrv2.mitre.org> X-Sender: norlans@mailsrv2.mitre.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:08:55 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Nicholas Orlans Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] just my 2 cents (in whatever currency is most In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Agree, that seems too broad. The crux of the difference is content (the [non-]encrypted mpeg files) versus the storage/interpretation/display processing. In the world of software, this loosely translates to data (input) versus applications (executable code sequences). -nick At 05:15 PM 2/23/00 +0200, you wrote: >On Wed, 23 Feb 100, Sham Gardner wrote: > >>So how is 'execution' defined in this context? As I've said before if >>interpreted programs fall under this definition, then MPEG code, which >>instructs the MPEG player on what colour to make which pixel when could also >>be seen to be 'executed'. > >This is far too broad. It would imply that whatever you type on a keyboard >is software and is executed. How about typing a novel? > >Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > > |-- Nicholas Orlans -|- 703.883.7454 -|- MITRE Corporation --| From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:04:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00522 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:04:34 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA00518 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:04:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 9934 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 17:00:33 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 17:00:33 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA04919; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:05:10 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:05:10 -0800 Message-Id: <200002231705.JAA04919@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >If vendor L hasn't paid to license the DVD specs and CSS, that is. >Unfortunately, I don't think that's illegal. > > > Ugh... So if someone licenses a packaging material for a box containing copyrighted genetically engineered jumping beanss with a little advertising screen, I have to licensed to official knife to open it. I can't use a few grams worth of plastique? I was born on the wrong planet, I told those fools at outer world customs they made a mistake but did they listen? No. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:08:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01332 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:08:41 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA01329 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:08:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 10464 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 17:04:41 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 17:04:41 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAB05514; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:09:18 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:09:18 -0800 Message-Id: <200002231709.JAB05514@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Important Fwd to DVD lawyers: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Thanks, Wendy. I... we needed that. (Do we get honorary fellowships for doing this...? hehe) Wendy Seltzer wrote: >I have had conversations with members of the defense teams, and they are >following the discussions here with interest. I'm talking with them about >how best to advance the collaboration. > >Promising arguments in these forums will not be ignored. Thanks! > >--Wendy > >At 11:29 PM 2/22/00 -0800, rmarian@linuxstart.com wrote: >>Sham Gardner wrote: > >>>I don't think anyone is asking them to disclose anything, but simply reading >>>this forum may help them come up with better strategies. >> >>Letting us know that they did is good too. It helps w/ morale in the >trenches. >> >>>Sham >> >>---------------------- >>Do you do Linux? :) >>Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com > >--- >Wendy Seltzer >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School >wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:10:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01589 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:10:10 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01586 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:10:09 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA08010 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:10:44 -0600 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:10:44 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Overly broadness (part thereof) Message-ID: <20000223111044.A7940@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:54:21PM +0100, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > > ...Should this law be interpreted to its fullest extent, > sale of whole classes of common electronic components will have to be > banned. ( Imagine blacklist of op-amps , resistor blacklist, > illegal vero-board sizes etc. etc. ) Senator John Ashcroft [1]: "Further, concerns were voiced during the Committee's deliberations that because 1201 applies not only to devices but to parts and components of devices, it could be interpreted broadly to sweep in legitimate products such as personal computers and accessories and video and audio recording devices. While the manufacturers of these products were understandably concerned, it was quite apparent to me that it was not the Committee's intention that such useful multipurpose articles of commerce be prohibited by 1201 on the basis that they may have particular parts or components that might, if evaluated separately from such products, fall within the proscriptions of 1201(a)(2) or (b). My amendment adding sections 1201(d)(2) and (3) was intended to address these concerns." The section numbers don't seem to make sense, however. Perhaps there was some renumbering after he said this and he means 1201(c)(2) and (3) ? [1] Congressional Record, May 14, 1998, Page S4890. Eric PS. more fun DMCA congressional quotes at http://technocrat.net/949957090/index_html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:10:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01751 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:10:39 -0500 Received: from dial94.roadrunner.com (dial94.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.94]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01748 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:10:33 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial94.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01715 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:13:51 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:13:50 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Patent issues Message-ID: <20000223101350.A1461@localhost> References: <38b50c35.3844824@mail.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38b50c35.3844824@mail.tiac.net>; from Ron Gustavson on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:48:04PM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:20:28 +0100 (CET), Frank wrote: >MPAA: Yes, we know that Nosferatu is not copyrighted, but look the >defendends are providing means for access of said work in violation >of US patent xxx.yyyy.zzz ( some unknown number ). On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:48:04PM +0000, Ron Gustavson wrote: > They would probably state that the original 1922 film version is in the > public domain, but the 1998 DVD is now fully copyrighted by Image > Entertainment. This new version adds commentary by German > silent film historian Lokke Heiss, production notes, and a collection of > supplemental materials. > > This is a major problem for public domain films and recordings--even > worse than for books. How many people have access to the original > negatives or tapes (or pre-1923 copies?) This issue is somewhat tricky. I don't know enough to give a reliable answer. That said: it is not at all clear to me that the copyright on the work _as a whole_ says anything about the copyright status of the 1922 release cut. Depending on a variety of factors, such as whether the frames were cleaned-up, the sequences were re-cut, etc. the 1922 movie may, or may _not_ be copyrighted, even though the work as a whole is covered by Title 17. If the 1922 movie is public domain, then the fact that CSS is applied to the whole .vob file may be very significant. I'm trying to figure this out, but this may be a subtle issue. It would be good to have a _real_ copyright expert (i.e. a copyright lawyer who knows the relevant law and decisions) take a look. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:24:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA05857 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:24:40 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA05853 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:24:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 22882 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 17:25:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223172508.22881.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:25:08 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:25:08 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Who said anything about program names? I'm making the distinction > between the Xing player, DeCSS, the underlying multimedia > programmming and the scrambling method that is known as CSS. > Which one are *you* calling CSS? The DVD manufacturers create DVD's with a physical image of some files. Those files were created from the unencrypted video, sound, etc... files using some program before they were handed to manufacturing. This program implements the CSS encryption method, so I'm describing it as the "CSS encryption program". Are you trying to suggest that the "CSS scrambling method", as you call it, creates encrypted content from unencrypted content by something other than a computer program? What would this be, some guy with an abacus? Given that I only need to identify one pair of interoperating programs, I could also claim that the .vob files themselves are programs, since they contain instructions in the mpeg2 syntax (among others) that provide the commands needed to make the video card draw the frames. Then the interaction is DeCSS + DVD. This interpretation would even meet 1201(f)(1). Another alternative is to claim that the interoperability is for the independently created programs in the Linux OS with (LiViD + DVD movies), and that DeCSS was a necessary step in this development, as Johansen has stated. > And you're rationalizing, because you have your little pet theory and > can't let go of it. In order to hold onto that theory, you're either > intentionally or unintentionally trying to blur the lines and confuse > the technical aspects of this case. One of the ways you're doing > this is by claiming that the RE exemption applies because it was done > to achieve interoperability between LiViD and CSS. When it is pointed > out to you that "CSS" - the scrambling method as defined in court - > probably does not meet the "program" criteria (which is clearly spelled > out in 1201) you start playing word games. I'm sorry that I just don't agree with the _assertion_ that the CSS scrambling method is 'probably' implemented by a non-program. I've asked you to cite something to back this up, but you seem to think that I am the only one who bears the burden of supporting their assumptions. The whole purpose of this forum to refine arguements, so of course I'm going to advocate my position even if an opposing view is stated. It's especially important to do this where it may be possible to convince Judge Kaplan or the circuit court above him to come to a different conlcusion. It's fair to ask me to support assertions when an alternative is offered, but be prepared to do the same. > Bryan, you've made a few good points here. But you're not stating > them clearly and you're not backing them up, and what you *are* > backing up you're lacing with assumptions and rationalizations. You're > feeling more than you're thinking. It makes it difficult to take any of > what you say seriously. It's only interesting to question assumptions when they are wrong or hard to follow. You are somewhat correct, however. I am assuming that DVD content is encrypted using a program, which I described as 'the CSS encryption program'. It appears you are assuming the opposite, so I really think it's a bit odd to take me to task for making assumptions, when you are doing the same. Look, I appreciate your efforts to take the debate to a more rigorous level. That is why I respond to your messages. I would like to get past critiquing each other's style and just focus on the issues. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:29:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07093 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:29:29 -0500 Received: from gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (smtp.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07090 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:29:28 -0500 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05028 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:30:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from 128.164.127.252 (webmail.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.246]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19040 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:38:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002231738.MAA19040@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:30:14 -0500 From: dhudson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002218 Subject: [dvd-discuss] Patent issues Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu A search in the IBM patent database of CSS & encryption revealed: The most relevant patent is U.S. 6,009,171, entitled "Apparatus, method and computer program product for protecting copyright data within a computer system." It directly describes part of the CSS algorithm, and was issued at the end of December. (This explains why they didn't sue for patent infringement right away -- assuming they believe the patent is valid.) (IBM) Another relevant patent is U.S. 5,910,987, entitled "Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection." (InterTrust Tech.) You don't have to be a lawyer to guess that these may be the next line of attack against DeCSS. IANAL. Possible solution: >From some previous posts, what if a knowledgable group came up with an open sourced, strong crypto alternative to private distribution means (at least for internet distributed media) One that would allow artists to control distribution of their own work, allow fair use rights, steer clear of existing IP rights, and not suffer from the monopoly controls of certain industry organizations? This is off-topic, but if anyone finds the idea possible, let me know off-list. -Doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:32:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08051 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:32:44 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA08047 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:32:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 13055 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 17:28:43 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 17:28:43 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA09279; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:33:19 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:33:19 -0800 Message-Id: <200002231733.JAA09279@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Thanks Technocrat.net Re: [dvd-discuss] Overly broadness (part thereof) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Eric Seppanen wrote: >On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:54:21PM +0100, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: >> >> ...Should this law be interpreted to its fullest extent, >> sale of whole classes of common electronic components will have to be >> banned. ( Imagine blacklist of op-amps , resistor blacklist, >> illegal vero-board sizes etc. etc. ) > >Senator John Ashcroft [1]: > >"Further, concerns were voiced during the Committee's deliberations that >because 1201 applies not only to devices but to parts and components of >devices, it could be interpreted broadly to sweep in legitimate products >such as personal computers and accessories and video and audio recording >devices. While the manufacturers of these products were understandably >concerned, it was quite apparent to me that it was not the Committee's >intention that such useful multipurpose articles of commerce be prohibited >by 1201 on the basis that they may have particular parts or components >that might, if evaluated separately from such products, fall within the >proscriptions of 1201(a)(2) or (b). My amendment adding sections >1201(d)(2) and (3) was intended to address these concerns." > >The section numbers don't seem to make sense, however. Perhaps there was >some renumbering after he said this and he means 1201(c)(2) and (3) ? > > >[1] Congressional Record, May 14, 1998, Page S4890. > > >Eric I think it was also bent, spindled, and mutilated. > >PS. more fun DMCA congressional quotes at >http://technocrat.net/949957090/index_html Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:40:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10777 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:40:56 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA10773 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:40:54 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA08108 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:41:33 -0600 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:41:33 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223083210.B871@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223083210.B871@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > We really need to determine the status of the _picture frames_. Not the > work as a whole. The work as a whole contains new material. We want to > know the copyright status of _just_ the <1923 motion picture frames. > Maybe this will be useful: go to www.bigstar.com and you can refine a search by release year. A search for 1910's movies: http://www.bigstar.com/search/index.cfm/?fa=qt&sst=t&fmt=DVD&url_stuff=36ba9ebg227c3ccg1&reflg=1&rel=1910 gives the results: Broken Blossoms (1919) The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919) Daddy-Long-Legs (1919) Felix the Cat - Felix! (1919) Male and Female (1919) The Spiders (1919) Laurel and Hardy: The Lost Films of Laurel and Hardy Vol. 1 (1918-1929) Chaplin - The First National Shorts (1918-1923) The Kid/A Dog's Life (1918, 1921) Amarilly of Clothes-Line Alley (1918) Stella Maris (1918) Seven Chances (1917-25) Chaplin at Mutual Studios 1 (1917) 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1916) Chaplin at Mutual Studios 2 (1916) Chaplin at Mutual Studios 3 (1916) Intolerance (1916) Birth of a Nation (1915) Birth Of A Nation/Birth Of A Race (1915) Chaplin's Essanay Comedies - Volume One (1915) Chaplin's Essanay Comedies - Volume Three (1915) Chaplin's Essanay Comedies - Volume Two (1915) The Lamb (1915) Chaplin Marathon (1914-1917) Collector's Choice Double Feature: Charlie Chaplin (1914-18) Tillie's Punctured Romance (1914) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:45:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA11822 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:45:11 -0500 Received: from gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (smtp.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA11819 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:45:11 -0500 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08385 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:45:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from 128.164.127.252 (webmail.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.246]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10467; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:54:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002231754.MAA10467@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:45:56 -0500 From: dhudson To: dhudson , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002218 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Patent issues Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:48:04PM +0000, Ron Gustavson wrote: >> They would probably state that the original 1922 film version is in the >> public domain, but the 1998 DVD is now fully copyrighted by Image >> Entertainment. This new version adds commentary by German >> silent film historian Lokke Heiss, production notes, and a collection of >> supplemental materials. Preamble: This is not legal advice, just an informational discussion of legal precedent. IANAL. The new work is probably copyrightable as a compilation of other works. But rights to a compilation don't generally give you rights to all the underlying works. If anyone had any doubts about this, the 2d circuit made it clear in Tasini. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/uscircs/2nd/979181.html. >the 1922 release cut. Depending on a variety of factors, such as >whether the frames were cleaned-up, the sequences were re-cut, etc. the >1922 movie may, or may _not_ be copyrighted, even though the work as >a whole is covered by Title 17. If the 1922 movie is public domain, then Textually, you can get a new copyright if it is an original work of authorship. This requires a "modicum of creativity" following Feist v. Rural Telecom, 499 US 340 (1991) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us/499/340.html. So placing an old movie on a laserdisk or DVD with other materials (probably) doesn't entitle you to a new copyright in the movie. However, colorizing the movie, remastering the audio or video, etc., if it involves a minimal showing of creativity, probably will give you a new copyright. Moral of the story: it don't take much to get a "new" copyright, but it doesn't happen automatically either. I personally don't see how copying the VOB file of -just- a public domain work off a DVD could be copyright infringement -- but don't take my word for it, I'm sure the MPAA will find a way to make it illegal, if they haven't already with the DMCA. -Doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 12:53:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA15357 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:53:56 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15353 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:53:54 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA08142 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:54:33 -0600 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:54:33 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000223115433.B8023@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223083210.B871@localhost> <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Now this is interesting. If you go to amazon.com and specify a search for "chaplin dvd" you come up with a bunch of stuff like this, implying that public domain movies are being sold with CSS and region coding... The Chaplin Mutuals, Vol. 1 (1917) List Price: $29.99 Our Price: $23.99 You Save: $6.00 (20%) Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Rated: NR Starring: Charlie Chaplin, et al. Edition Details: ****Region 1 encoding (US and Canada only) Black & White Commentary by Extensive essay on the making of the "Mutuals" by Sam Gill, Archivist Emeritus of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ASIN: 6305075522 Click here for more technical details about this edition... Other Formats: VHS Amazon.com Sales Rank (DVD): 1,490 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 13:08:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19733 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:08:34 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19726 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:08:33 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 513CF76F5; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:09:38 -0600 (CST) Delivered-To: steve@localhost.urh.uiuc.edu Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D0676EA for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:58:15 -0600 (CST) Received: from students.uiuc.edu by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.1.0) for steve@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:58:15 -0600 (CST) Received: from relay2.cso.uiuc.edu (relay2.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.120]) by datasrv4.cso.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22342 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:55:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from eon.law.harvard.edu (IDENT:majordomo@eon.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.71]) by relay2.cso.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05536; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:55:58 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA11251 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:53:54 -0500 Received: from fb00.eng00.mindspring.net (fb00.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.200.31]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA11248 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:53:54 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniiek.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.73.212]) by fb00.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA17501 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:54:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002230054.TAA17501@fb00.eng00.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:48:13 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: Important Fwd to DVD lawyers: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Performance Right (was Question from a Journalist) In-Reply-To: <200002222009.MAA25107@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bear in mind that EFF attorneys are prohibited from disclosing the confidential affairs of clients -- those named defendants who have formally agreed to have specific attorneys represent them (EFF is not authorized to practice law, only individuals are). Attorneys can be severely sanctioned for disclosure. Defendants may disclose whatever they wish, and may or may not heed the advice of counsel on this. Moreover, no sage attorney is going to reveal in a public forum what the case strategy is, except whatever might demonize the opposition or boost client's angelicism. So don't expect defendant attorneys to reveal what they are doing in either the California or New York cases except, perhaps, the most vague generalities, and only then with extreme care. That said, it's worth remembering that no law is absolute, nor its any neutral. That is what suits and arguments and judges squabble about. Even law-abiding is not neutral. Some of the most legendary rulings have been those that defied conventional wisdom of what the law said and how it should be obeyed. To be sure, some ruling seem immanently sane to us, others clearly nuts, but that depends on which side of the law you find yourself. Wondrously, a wizard attorney can be the sole advocate, against the world, and still win a seemingly impossibly lost case. As with scientists who go against the world's absolute certainty of what reality really is. Sure a few lawyers and scientists get burned at the stake for such stupidity, but, hey, that's why they're venerated. Take Dario Fo, a comedian who makes mincemeat of authorities, gets repeatedly thrown in jail for ridiculing judges and officials, and then gets hammered with a Nobel Prize once the world catches on to his genius, and, not to forget the most important feature, his courage to go where the rest of are afraid to tread. Final example to remember is the Federal Judge Hoffman who handled the Chicago 8 case in the 60s. The defendants drove hims nuts, rather revealed his insanity, despite their attorneys pleading with them to behave. Eventually, the attorneys followed the defendants leadership once Judge Hoffman turned on them for failing to control the clients. No need to worry about offending Judge Kaplan, he's asking for it, probably wants the challenge. Don't you see that he's bored shitless with endless corporate bullshit cases. Why else write one of the world's longest preliminary injunction rulings if not to say, hey, world, listen up, I'm not merely a potted plant yodeling "cocksucker." Lewis relished saying it folks, you had to be there to see his eye-roll at the women. Like Hoffman in Chicago, like Judge Judy. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 13:08:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19732 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:08:34 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19727 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:08:33 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 626E276F6; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:09:38 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] discrediting CSS as an access control (was: 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:02:15 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022312093800.03143@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, you wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Cameron Simpson wrote: > > >Is the fact that the access control is unrelated to the purchaser a way > >to argue that the CSS stuff is not "valid" in some way, being not > >related to the "permission" one obtains by buying a DVD? > > This might have to do with the authority part of 1201(a)(3)(A) as authority > is granted for viewing/decryption upon purchase regardless of the > player. The problem is, it can be argued that DeCSS removes CSS and > authority for that is not granted under any condition. Well, that is arguable. If DeCSS is used to directly pipe the decoded DVD to a MPEG player, then it acts the same as licenced DVD players. Even if a copy is made to the user's hard drive, that could easily be covered under fair use for viewing and not be above the authority granted by the Copyright holder. You have a good point, though, and it is one that the MPAA is likely to use if the defense argues that DeCSS can be used "with Authority." -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. -- Euripides From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 13:22:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23960 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:22:43 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23957 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:22:41 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01176 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:21:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:21:50 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net> References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223083210.B871@localhost> <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223115433.B8023@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223115433.B8023@thud.reric.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:54:33AM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > Now this is interesting. If you go to amazon.com and specify a search for > "chaplin dvd" you come up with a bunch of stuff like this, implying that > public domain movies are being sold with CSS and region coding... UHG! WILL PEOPLE PLEASE STOP EQUATING REGION CODING WITH CSS?!?!?! PUT THIS IN THE DAMN FAQ! They are technologically independent and no-one has demonstrated that all copyright owners who are also DVD manufactures have decided "You know, we will use CSS on all DVDs with region coding..." So far as I know, all DVDs are region coded. We've already demonstrated that not all DVDs are CSS encoded. I may be incorrect about the first point, but no one has demonstrated otherwise. The affect of people blindly accepting that assumption is that no one has actually purchased a public-domain work on DVD and attempted to play it with a non-CSS enabled player (or tested this in another way). Does someone want to make a quick hack program which will determine whether or not it is CSS-encoded and post binaries on an accessible website? Said program could automagically post a form to some web site so we can keep track of how and which DVDs are region-encoded and/or CSS-encoded. (This would not necessarily incorporate the CSS decryption algorithm, nor would it be circumvention - we just need some market data, basically). > > The Chaplin Mutuals, Vol. 1 (1917) > > List Price: $29.99 > Our Price: $23.99 > You Save: $6.00 (20%) > Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. > Rated: NR > Starring: Charlie Chaplin, et al. > Edition Details: > ****Region 1 encoding (US and Canada only) > Black & White > Commentary by Extensive essay on the making of the "Mutuals" by Sam Gill, > Archivist Emeritus of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences > ASIN: 6305075522 Click here for more technical details about this > edition... > Other Formats: VHS > Amazon.com Sales Rank (DVD): 1,490 -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 13:26:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA24928 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:26:51 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA24921 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:26:49 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12NgVU-000ljg-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:27:28 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software and data To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 23 Feb 100 19:27:24 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200002231609.IAA29740@ns1.filetron.com> from "Rares Marian" at Feb 23, 0 08:09:42 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > >This is far too broad. It would imply that whatever you type on a keyboard > >is software and is executed. How about typing a novel? > > That wasn't what I intended. I think that was directed at me. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 13:40:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28557 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:40:19 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28554 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:40:18 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12NgiY-000ljY-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:40:58 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 23 Feb 100 19:40:58 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net> from "Jason M. Felice" at Feb 23, 0 01:21:50 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Does someone want to make a quick hack program which will determine whether > or not it is CSS-encoded and post binaries on an accessible website? There's no need for a program. I've tried this with CSS discs (I haven't had access to any others yet). It's possible to copy a VOB file to the hard drive and try to use a software player to play the file directly. if the disc was CSS scrambled it won't get very far. If it wasn't it will play just fine. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 13:42:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA29012 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:42:40 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA29009 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:42:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 23193 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 18:47:10 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:47:10 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000223134710.A23044@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223172508.22881.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223172508.22881.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:25:08AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:25:08AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > Who said anything about program names? I'm making the distinction > > between the Xing player, DeCSS, the underlying multimedia > > programmming and the scrambling method that is known as CSS. > > Which one are *you* calling CSS? > > The DVD manufacturers create DVD's with a physical image of some files. > Those files were created from the unencrypted video, sound, etc... > files using some program before they were handed to manufacturing. This > program implements the CSS encryption method, so I'm describing it as > the "CSS encryption program". Unfortunately, you're describe it inaccurately. You are of course free to make up words for anything you choose - it just doesn't mean that other people have to recognize your definitions. This wouldn't at all be an issue - it would be simply your "style", as you put it - if it wasn't for the fact that you're attempting to justify haven under the RE exemption by using the term "program" for something that isn't a program. I can't figure out if you're doing this intentionally or unintentionally; either you simply don't understand the difference, or you do and you're hoping other people don't. Elsewhere in this forum we're beginning to discuss what constitutes a program. So far, the best answer seems to be that a "program" is a set of instructions written in a computing language that meets the criteria of Turing completeness. This seems to me a very sensible way of distinguishing a "program" from a set of data used to simply replicate a result. MPEG-2 and CSS do not fit this criteria, while DeCSS, the Xing player and quite probably the interactive application contained on a DVD do. It takes more than redefining your own terms to make a valid argument. I've stated the basis of my assertion that "CSS" is not a program. Now please state the basis of your assertion that it is, beyond simply saying "this is my definition, the one *I'm* using". > > And you're rationalizing, because you have your little pet theory and > > can't let go of it. In order to hold onto that theory, you're either > > intentionally or unintentionally trying to blur the lines and confuse > > the technical aspects of this case. One of the ways you're doing > > this is by claiming that the RE exemption applies because it was done > > to achieve interoperability between LiViD and CSS. When it is > pointed > > out to you that "CSS" - the scrambling method as defined in court - > > probably does not meet the "program" criteria (which is clearly > spelled > > out in 1201) you start playing word games. > > I'm sorry that I just don't agree with the _assertion_ that the CSS > scrambling method is 'probably' implemented by a non-program. I've > asked you to cite something to back this up, but you seem to think that > I am the only one who bears the burden of supporting their assumptions. See the above for my reasoning that "CSS" is not a program. The decryption software in DVD players is a program. The MPEG-2 player is a program. MPEG-2 itself and CSS itself are not programs. If you read carefully what I wrote, you'll notice that I'm not saying that CSS wasn't implemented by a program. I'm saying that CSS *itself* is not a program, and that the software used to put CSS into place on a DVD disk is not itself stored on the disk and has nothing to do with this. What part of this doesn't make sense to you? > The whole purpose of this forum to refine arguements, so of course I'm > going to advocate my position even if an opposing view is stated. It's > especially important to do this where it may be possible to convince > Judge Kaplan or the circuit court above him to come to a different > conlcusion. It's fair to ask me to support assertions when an > alternative is offered, but be prepared to do the same. No, the whole purpose of this forum is to brainstorm lines of attack and then subject them to the harshest criticism. That's what open source methodology is all about. It's sad that you feel the need to hold onto a single position, to the point of weaselling around with word games and subjective reasoning to do it. > > Bryan, you've made a few good points here. But you're not stating > > them clearly and you're not backing them up, and what you *are* > > backing up you're lacing with assumptions and rationalizations. > You're > > feeling more than you're thinking. It makes it difficult to take > any of > > what you say seriously. > > It's only interesting to question assumptions when they are wrong or > hard to follow. I'm sincerely sorry that you feel that way. If you don't find the questioning of the "right" assumptions interesting, then how do you know they're correct? This position has historically been attributed to the most ideological and egotistical; a lot of people have died in the past because folks in power felt they only had to question the "wrong" assumptions. A more honest approach is to question all assumptions, whether you see them as right or wrong. > You are somewhat correct, however. I am assuming that DVD content is > encrypted using a program, which I described as 'the CSS encryption > program'. It appears you are assuming the opposite, so I really think > it's a bit odd to take me to task for making assumptions, when you are > doing the same. And I'm not arguing that DVD content was encrypted using a program. Of course it was. But that program - to the best of my knowledge, I'm sure Dana can tell me if I'm wrong - is not located anywhere on the DVD or in a player. Only by horribly twisting the facts and playing word games (i.e., "this is my defintion", etc.) do you arrive at the conclusion that DeCSS falls under the RE exemption because CSS is a "program". Are you stating that DeCSS enables interoperability with the DVD disc press at the factory? Is that what you're saying? Perhaps I've misread your posts. > Look, I appreciate your efforts to take the debate to a more rigorous > level. That is why I respond to your messages. I would like to get past > critiquing each other's style and just focus on the issues. Agreed. But if you're making arguments based on bad conclusions, and then justifying those conclusions by stating that their foundations lie in "your style", for purposes of arguing the issue your style becomes relevant. I respond to *your* messages because I think you've got valid points here. But valid points and "forcefully advocating" don't do jack. You need logical arguments based on reality and terminology that is openly recognized and respected. Making up your own terms doesn't count. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 13:48:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30106 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:48:10 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA30103 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:48:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 23207 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 18:52:45 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:52:45 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000223135245.B23044@linuxpower.org> References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223083210.B871@localhost> <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223115433.B8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net>; from Jason M. Felice on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:21:50PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:21:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:54:33AM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > Now this is interesting. If you go to amazon.com and specify a search for > > "chaplin dvd" you come up with a bunch of stuff like this, implying that > > public domain movies are being sold with CSS and region coding... > > UHG! WILL PEOPLE PLEASE STOP EQUATING REGION CODING WITH CSS?!?!?! > > PUT THIS IN THE DAMN FAQ! Done. How ya want to phrase the question? Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 13:51:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA31318 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:51:37 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA31260 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:51:36 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id F000C76F5; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:52:41 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:40:21 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000223172508.22881.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000223172508.22881.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022312524101.03143@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Given that I only need to identify one pair of interoperating > programs, I could also claim that the .vob files themselves are > programs, since they contain instructions in the mpeg2 syntax (among > others) that provide the commands needed to make the video card draw > the frames. Then the interaction is DeCSS + DVD. This interpretation > would even meet 1201(f)(1). I'm not sure we're even approaching this part of the law correctly. I may be the devil's advocate, but here's my interpretation (IANAL). 1201(f) seems to allow circumvention of the encryption in order to learn how to make programs interact, but it does not extend to allowing other programs to continue to circumvent the encryption. So even if we say that DeCSS allows LiViD to interoperate with DVD ROM files, that is not what is covered in the exception. 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of software protected by encryption, not reverse engineering of the encryption itself. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. -- Euripides From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 13:52:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA31723 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:52:53 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA31719 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:52:52 -0500 Received: (qmail 21914 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 18:48:52 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 18:48:52 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA21845; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:53:29 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:53:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200002231853.KAA21845@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is the MPAA going to sue ATI? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Check this one out:http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/23/0848227&mode=thread I think Dividing the MPAA into several ongoing lawsuits will do the trick. Now imagine hardware manufacturers attacking UCITA. Drool. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 14:08:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02782 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:08:04 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA02779 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:08:03 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA26122 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:08:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B42FFE.E326D980@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:07:42 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223083210.B871@localhost> <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223115433.B8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > So far as I know, all DVDs are region coded. We've already demonstrated > that not all DVDs are CSS encoded. I may be incorrect about the first > point, but no one has demonstrated otherwise. All DVDs may be region coded, but some are coded for several regions. They could also be coded for ALL regions, which is the same thing as NOT being region coded, that is, it doesn't matter what region you try to play it in, it'll work. Regional coding and CSS are optional and are not officially part of the DVD spec. May I suggest, for a better understanding of these issues, you (plural) take a look at Jim Taylor's DVD FAQ at http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html or better yet, read DVD Demystified. There's a wealth of basic information there, and answers to lots of the questions being posted, and debunking and clarification of a lot of the misunderstandings that apparently abound. DVD Demystified is your best source outside of a DVD spec book ($5000) and it's a lot cheaper. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 14:18:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA05230 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:18:19 -0500 Received: from dial64.roadrunner.com (dial64.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.64]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05200 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:18:14 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial64.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA02064 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:21:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:21:41 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This summarizes some of the points made in the last week and a half. Paul Fenimore (A) 1201(a)(2) and (b) are overbroad under the copyright clause and too restrictive under 1st Amendment. (i) 1201(a)(2) and (b) would hinder access to material that is in the public domain because (a)(2) and (b) make no distinction as to the age of material. This violates "for limited times". (a) Congress may not prohibit trafficking in devices 1201(a)(2), (b), because the same devices are necessary to access both copyrighted 1201(a)(1) material, and public domain, encrypted non-(a)(1) material. (b) Because access control is applied at top level of DVD, derivate work that include both copyrighted and public domain material must violate 1201(a)(1) access control to perform public domain material. (c) Because currently copyrighted material must pass into public domain in the future, 1201(a)(2) and (b) are direct violations of "limited times". (d) Congress may not condition access to public domain material on building the device yourself. (ii) (a)(2) and (b) hinder receipt of published information (Griswold, et al.) and hinder fair use private performance. (a) Private performance is protected by 106 -> 120 [ yes, this must be more specific ] fair use, and by USSC decisions [ Yes, must find refs ] (b) 1201(a)(2) and (b) "primary purpose" is too restrictive of "right to read" (Griswold, Martin v. Struthers), "right to receive" (Stanely v. Georgia), "freedom of inquiry" (Weimann v. Updegraff). (c) 1201(a)(2) and (b) devices could be used to make private performance, but are restricted. (d) Restriction of private performance implicates all of (ii)(b), which derive from Amend. I and IX. Scope of these rights much larger than fair use performance alone. (e) The Court must not allow 1201(a)(2) and (b) to restrict private performance, right to read or the right to receive non-infringing duplicates. (B) Access must not be solely at the discretion of copyright holder. Standing: 1201(a)(1) not in force yet, but likely will be before end of trial; 1201(a)(1) is integral to 1201(a)(2) and (b). (i) Access 1201(a)(1) is necessary to perform, to read, to learn, to receive expressive material. (a) "Right to receive", "right to read" Griswold, et al. (b) Right to "free inquiry" Weimann. (c) Founded in Amendments I and IX. (d) These right are larger than fair use. Performance is just one aspect of (a-c). (e) Access necessary prerequisite to performance. Congress may not circumvent I Amend. considerations of copyright by appeal to commerce clause. (Fiest?) (f) Even if unauthorized circumvention is de novo offense, access must be regulated as performance, reading, receiving. (ii) Access 1201(a)(1) must be governed as performance under 106(4), because otherwise (a) 1201(c) would be meaningless, and (b) Uses of "infringement under this title" in (j), etc. further indicate intent to equate "authority" (a)(1) with "authorize", 106. (iii) Congress may not allow or require "authority" 1201, to be more restrictive than "authority" 106, because of (B)(i) and (ii) above. Nor may Congress expand 106(4,5) because of (B)(i)(a-d). (iv) The Court must enforce (B)(iii). (v) Plaintiff copyright notice "for home use" does not even contend that home use is regulated. (vi) DeCSS out of scope because of (iii) and (v). (vii) 1201(a)(1) must not be interpreted as protecting region codes. Meyer v. Nebraska, right to learn German in private school, Griswold v. Connecticut, "may not ... contract the spectrum of available knowledge." [ Can we argue that 1201(a)(1) is thus unconstitutionally vauge? ] (C) Reverse Engineering 1201(f), Encryption Research 1201(g), Security Testing 1201(j). [ Hah! I'm not touching this one yet. ] (D) Certain Analog Devices 1201(k) (i) 1201(k)(1) violates "limited times". (ii) 1201(k)(3) unconstitutionally regulates duplication of public domain material into two categories. (iii) (i) and (ii) further demonstrate Congress' disregard for limitations of copyright clause in enacting 1201. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 14:32:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09835 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:32:18 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA09761 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:32:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 23295 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 19:36:53 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:36:53 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAQ Goodness Message-ID: <20000223143653.A23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223005341.P20634@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223005341.P20634@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 12:53:41AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 12:53:41AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Since the last mention was in the middle of a thread, I thought I'd make > a whole new thread for this. > > I'm in the process of putting together an FAQ for this group. We have new > people coming into this discussion all the time, and the volume is increasing > every day. We're also running over the same ground over and over again. > > If you have ideas for questions, please say so. I think for legitimacy sake > all named contributors to the FAQ should be listed with their true names and > email addresses; this will add a level of responsibility to the FAQ and make > it look less like a bunch of Internet hackers playing lawyer. Okay, I've got the first draft of the FAQ about half done. One of the things I'd like to do on this is provide a very brief bio description of each of the official FAQ contributors. Two or three sentences max. An example would be: "Rob Warren is a Unix client/server consultant in the Tampa, Florida area and a Linux developer. His recent projects have included GXAnim, the GTK frontend for the XAnim video player, and the Canvas Project, hosted at LinuxPower." I currently have the following individuals listed as contributors. Omissions are either oversights or done because I didn't have a real name and email for that person. If you wish to be added, or be taken off, you can either respond here or drop me a private email and I'll be happy to do so. Contributors: Wendy Seltzer wseltzer@law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore fenimore@roadrunner.com Sampo Syreeni decoy@iki.fi Dana Parker danapark@ix.netcom.com Frank Stevenson frank@funcom.com John Young jya@pipeline.com Bryan Taylor bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com Sham Gardner gara0013@fh-karlsruhe.de Rares Marian rmarian@linuxstart.com Jason M. Felice jasonf@shell.nacs.net Seth David Schoen schoen@loyalty.org Doug Hudson dhudson@gwu.edu Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org Benjamin Reeve breeve@ibm.net Ron Gustavson rongus@tiac.net Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 14:34:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA10699 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:34:46 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA10676 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:34:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 518 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 19:35:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223193519.517.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:35:19 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:35:19 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > And I'm still waiting for you to provide a legal definition for > > > the word "authority". The best you've done so far is make up your > > > own definition. Show me a legal reference that defines "authority" > > > in the way you describe and I will happily concede the point. To authorize is to give permission. Read any law or english dictionary. I've provide one such reference already. I am now prepared to provide legal citation for the following two claims: 1. That the text in the copyright notice is an affirmative declaration that can be relied on to determine rights abandoned by the copyright owner 2. That the copyright text takes precedence over subsequent declarations of 'intent' made by the copyright holder In other words: the grants in the copyright notice may give up rights and are binding on the copyright holder The case, Hadady v Dean Witter (1990), which I've provided extended excerts below is a 9th Circuit summary judgement appeal. The short summary is that Hadady's copyright notice on his newsletter abandoned all of his rights to copyright after two days until he changed it, even though he testified that this was not his intent. He later changed the notice. The 9th circuit partially granted summary judgement for Dean Witter on this basis. They also partially denied it on the basis that he changed the notice. Selected excerts now follow. Read the whole case at http://www.jurisline.com by entering in the citation: 739 F. Supp. 1392 ______________________________________________________ HADADY CORP. V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., 739 F. Supp. 1392 (C.D. CA 1990) MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 7. From October 1, 1985, to September 15, 1987, the Bullish Consensus newsletter contained a copyright notice stating that "The information contained in this letter is protected by U.S. copyright laws through noon EST on the 2d day after its release . . . " The copyright notice was proper. 11. Mr. Hadady intended the two day copyright notice "to give Hadady's permission to subscribers to the printed Bullish Consensus publication to use and disseminate the publication information freely subsequent to midday of the second day following publication," although he did not thereby intend to "abandon any copyrights owned by Hadady in the Bullish consensus information." CONTENTIONS Dean Witter contends that (1) Hadady Corp. abandoned its copyright after two days; (2) Hadady Corp. is equitably estopped from asserting copyright infringement [...] Hadady Corp. argues that (a) the Bullish Consensus newsletter copyrights did not expire after two days, but rather that Hadady Corp. extended to subscribers a license; (b) Hadady Corp. did not intend to abandon its copyright [...] ANALYSIS The Court concludes that during the period July 2, 1987 to September 22, 1987, Hadady Corporation abandoned its copyright in the Bullish Consensus information two days after publication. Abandonment occurs when the copyright proprietor intends to surrender a copyright interest in his work. Lopez v. Electrical Rebuilders, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 1133, 1135 (C.D. Cal. 1976); 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 1306 at 13-130 (1989). To find abandonment, "the copyright owner must have clearly manifested that intention through some affirmative act." Goldstein, Copyright § 9.3 at 160 (1989); see also Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts [F. Supp. 1399] Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1019-20 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1059, 106 S. Ct. 802, 88 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1986). Hadady Corp. manifested that intention: its copyright notice on the Bullish Consensus newsletter was clearly limited to two days. It does not matter that Dean Witter did not subscribe to the newsletter; Hadady Corp. abandoned copyright protection to the information contained therein with respect to the whole world. Mr. Hadady declares that he did not subjectively intend by the two day notice to abandon Hadady Corp.'s copyright interest. But his declaration flies in the face of the only possible meaning the two-day copyright notice conveyed, and does not raise a triable issue of material fact. Cf. Foster v. Arcata Associates, Inc., 772 F.2d 1453, 1462-63 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048, 89 L. Ed. 2d 576, 106 S. Ct. 1267 (1986) (party cannot create a triable issue of material fact by submitting a declaration that contradicts clear earlier deposition testimony). The abandonment ended, however, on September 22, 1987 when Hadady Corp. changed the form of its copyright notice to delete the two-day provision. Hadady Corp. never forfeited its copyright. Forfeiture occurs when the copyright owner fails to affix the copyright notice to published copies of the work. See NEC Corp. v. Intel Corp., 1989 U.S. Dist. Decision, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 1989). The copyright owner's intent is not relevant: forfeiture can occur regardless of the owner's intent to preserve the copyright. Donald Frederick Evans v. Continental Homes, Inc., 785 F.2d 897, 912 (11th Cir. 1986); Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int'l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 486 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1981); 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.06 at 13-130 (1989) (hereafter " Nimmer "). There is no evidence in the record that the copyright owner -- Hadady Corporation -- ever failed properly to affix a copyright notice to the published copies of the Bullish Consensus. See PTC para. 5(c). Because there was neither abandonment nor forfeiture of Hadady Corp.'s copyright interests between September 22, 1987 and January 1989, summary judgment must be denied on this ground. CONCLUSION Based on the undisputed material facts, Hadady Corp. abandoned its copyright from July 2, 1987 to September 22, 1987. In addition, Hadady Corp. is estopped from asserting its copyright infringement claim. However, for the period after September 22, 1987, Hadady's claim for breach of contract (the 1985 settlement agreement) survives. The Court cannot conclude that plaintiff gave written permission for Dean Witter to use plaintiff's copyrighted work. Accordingly, the Court grants partial summary judgment on plaintiff's copyright infringement claim, but denies the motion regarding plaintiff's breach of contract claim with respect to the period after September 22, 1987. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 14:41:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA13300 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:41:24 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA13295 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:41:22 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01571 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:40:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:40:32 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000223144032.Y28173@nacs.net> References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223083210.B871@localhost> <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223115433.B8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net> <20000223135245.B23044@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223135245.B23044@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:52:45PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:21:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:54:33AM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > Now this is interesting. If you go to amazon.com and specify a search for > > > "chaplin dvd" you come up with a bunch of stuff like this, implying that > > > public domain movies are being sold with CSS and region coding... > > > > UHG! WILL PEOPLE PLEASE STOP EQUATING REGION CODING WITH CSS?!?!?! > > > > PUT THIS IN THE DAMN FAQ! > > Done. How ya want to phrase the question? Q: I have a DVD that says it is a region 1 DVD. Does that mean it uses CSS encryption? A: No. There is no relation between region coding and CSS encryption. As an example, if you were trying to discover whether CSS-encoded DVDs with pubic domain content exist and you find a Charlie Chaplin movie on DVD circa 1917, it isn't enough to note that the DVD is restricted to a particular region. Bah, I just read over that, and I highly doubt that you would find a DVD circa 1917.... I'm on my way out the door - you fix it ;) > > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 14:42:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14180 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:42:42 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA14177 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:42:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 19887 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 19:43:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223194317.19886.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:43:17 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:43:17 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Russell Miller wrote: > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > I bet I can find citations that say each of the following: > > 1. The copyright notice is one way the copyright holder may give > > permission for otherwise reserved rights. > > 2. Permission, once granted, cannot be retracted. > > > Those sound shaky. I'd like to see those citations. > OK, here's one: HADADY CORP. V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., 739 F. Supp. 1392 (C.D. CA 1990) The case says precisely what I've claimed. Hadady's copyright notice on his newsletter claimed copyright for only two days after publication. Hadady stated later his intent was not to abandon the copyright entirely, but merely to give his customers (Dean Witter was not one) greater use of the material. The 9th circuit rejected this and granted partial summary judgement (!!) for infringement of newsletters with this copyright notice. Some other newsletters had a different notice and the court did not grant summary judgement for these. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 14:53:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17285 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:53:04 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17282 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:53:02 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12Nhqj-000YIQ-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:53:29 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAQ Goodness To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 23 Feb 100 20:53:28 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20000223143653.A23265@linuxpower.org> from "greslin@linuxpower.org" at Feb 23, 0 02:36:53 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Okay, I've got the first draft of the FAQ about half done. One of the things > I'd like to do on this is provide a very brief bio description of each of > the official FAQ contributors. Two or three sentences max. An example would > be: > > "Rob Warren is a Unix client/server consultant in the Tampa, Florida area and > a Linux developer. His recent projects have included GXAnim, the GTK frontend > for the XAnim video player, and the Canvas Project, hosted at LinuxPower." I am a software engineer for a Linux based ISP in Karlsruhe, Germany. > I currently have the following individuals listed as contributors. Omissions > are either oversights or done because I didn't have a real name and email for > that person. If you wish to be added, or be taken off, you can either respond > here or drop me a private email and I'll be happy to do so. > > Contributors: > > Sham Gardner gara0013@fh-karlsruhe.de I'd prefer the email address to be risctaker@poppyfields.net, which currently redirects here (gara0013@fh...), but that will probably change in a couple of months. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 14:53:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17346 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:53:22 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA17343 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:53:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 23325 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 19:57:57 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:57:57 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000223145757.B23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223194317.19886.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223194317.19886.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:43:17AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:43:17AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Russell Miller wrote: > > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > I bet I can find citations that say each of the following: > > > 1. The copyright notice is one way the copyright holder may give > > > permission for otherwise reserved rights. > > > 2. Permission, once granted, cannot be retracted. > > > > > Those sound shaky. I'd like to see those citations. > > > > OK, here's one: > > HADADY CORP. V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., 739 F. Supp. 1392 (C.D. CA > 1990) > > The case says precisely what I've claimed. > > Hadady's copyright notice on his newsletter claimed copyright for only > two days after publication. Hadady stated later his intent was not to > abandon the copyright entirely, but merely to give his customers (Dean > Witter was not one) greater use of the material. The 9th circuit > rejected this and granted partial summary judgement (!!) for > infringement of newsletters with this copyright notice. Some other > newsletters had a different notice and the court did not grant summary > judgement for these. Interesting. I don't suppose there's a copy of this online somewhere? Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 15:09:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21926 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:09:23 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA21923 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:09:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 29163 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 20:05:22 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 20:05:22 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31521; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:09:59 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:09:59 -0800 Message-Id: <200002232009.MAA31521@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steven Barker wrote: >On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: >> >> Given that I only need to identify one pair of interoperating >> programs, I could also claim that the .vob files themselves are >> programs, since they contain instructions in the mpeg2 syntax What MPEG systax? It's a compression output unless you want to say a tar.gz of a Edgar Alan Poe poem is a program. Ther program is the one that does all the work. Rob, where's that Turing Completeness #define? >> others) that provide the commands needed to make the video card draw >> the frames. The frame drawing stuff is on the video card. That program only controls position cropping panning and browsing. The display functions still reside on the video card. MPEG doesn't tell the video card any how or why or where. The element that does that is the MPEG chip itself. >>Then the interaction is DeCSS + DVD. This interpretation would even meet >>1201(f)(1). > >I'm not sure we're even approaching this part of the law correctly. I may be >the devil's advocate, but here's my interpretation (IANAL). 1201(f) seems to >allow circumvention of the encryption in order to learn how to make programs >interact, but it does not extend to allowing other programs to continue to >circumvent the encryption. So even if we say that DeCSS allows LiViD to >interoperate with DVD ROM files, that is not what is covered in the exception. >1201(f) permits reverse engineering of software protected by encryption, not >reverse engineering of the encryption itself. I'm reading this as a right to redecorate your room given license but I cannot reverse engineer the lock on the door in the event I don't have your key. That's understandable, except for one flaw. I bought the house that contains that room, the contents of which are still yours. I'm going to take a break. Yall have fun. > >-- > Steven Barker > scbarker@uiuc.edu > >Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. > -- Euripides Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 15:13:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22946 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:13:51 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA22943 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:13:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 19208 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 20:14:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223201426.19207.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:14:26 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:14:26 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > I did some research into this a few years ago. From what I > understand, legal protections under the Copyright Act exist regardless > of registration, because a work is automatically covered under > copyright upon completion. Registering the copyright simply makes it > easier to prosecute infringement. There are other ways of proving > copyright, however. The Hadady case refers to 'forfeiture' of copyright, which is different from abandonment: "Hadady Corp. never forfeited its copyright. Forfeiture occurs when the copyright owner fails to affix the copyright notice to published copies of the work. See NEC Corp. v. Intel Corp., 1989 U.S. Dist. Decision, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 1989)." I found another case when I did my search on jurisline.com that calculated different damages for different volumes of an infringed copyrighted series because the copyright for the latter editions were not registered. Evidently, you get statutory and lawyer-costs only if you registered the copyright, otherwise you're limited to actual damages, defined by the value of lost sales: FITZGERALD PUBL. CO. V. BAYLOR PUBL. CO., 670 F. Supp. 1133 (E.D. NY 1987) "2. Plaintiff failed to register his copyrights for Volumes 12-16 before the infringements occurred and therefore is not entitled to statutory damages or attorney's fees for these volumes. 17 U.S.C. § 412(2). The plaintiff must prove actual damages attributable to the defendants' infringing activities." > Let's say for a moment that "home viewing only" sticks. (I'd > actually very much like it to, BTW.) DeCSS can be used for this > purpose, but it certainly isn't limited to it. So here we have a technology > that depending on the conditions of use, can be either circumventing or > noncircumventing, because under these terms "circumvention" can't be > proven until the device is used. The Xing player could be used to engage in a public showing, say. This too would be circumvention, I believe. Anyway, the "primarily for", "other than" and "marketed for" circumvention parts of 1201(a)(2)(A,B,C)) would then be the center of dispute, and you're fighting downhill on this one. (Unless you're dvd-copy.com on the "marketed for" part). Once you say that it's ok to use DeCSS to view DVD movies in your own home, the arguement is much easier, because you move away from an absolute ban. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 15:14:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23143 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:14:45 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA23136 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:14:44 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA08493 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:15:20 -0600 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:15:19 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000223141519.A8468@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223083210.B871@localhost> <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223115433.B8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:21:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > UHG! WILL PEOPLE PLEASE STOP EQUATING REGION CODING WITH CSS?!?!?! > > PUT THIS IN THE DAMN FAQ! > I certainly never meant that they were equivalent, or that one implied the other. But I don't think it's correct to say that they're completely disconnected, either. For example, in a document on the DVD-CCA website [1] they (DVD-CCA) say: "This notice will serve as a reminder to CSS licensees and their customers concerning the required change to Phase II implementation of regional playback control ("RPC") in computer drive-based DVD playback systems." This is implying that "CSS", as the DVD-CCA views it, may be defined as a system that includes the region control system. Personally, I'd agree with you- they should be described separately. But if it's going into a FAQ, the DVD-CCA's terminology should probably be considered, IMHO. [1] http://www.dvdcca.org/dvdcca/rcp.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 15:20:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA24637 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:20:19 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA24633 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:20:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 23436 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 20:24:47 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:24:47 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000223152447.E23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223193519.517.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223193519.517.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:35:19AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:35:19AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > And I'm still waiting for you to provide a legal definition for > > > > the word "authority". The best you've done so far is make up > your > > > > own definition. Show me a legal reference that defines > "authority" > > > > in the way you describe and I will happily concede the point. > > To authorize is to give permission. Read any law or english dictionary. > I've provide one such reference already. I know. I've already acknowledged it. You're reading the posts out of order. :) > > Selected excerts now follow. Read the whole case at > http://www.jurisline.com by entering in the citation: 739 F. Supp. 1392 Thanks for the link. In my other post on this I requested a URL; I sent that out before I received this one. I'll read it over. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 15:24:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA25905 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:24:50 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA25902 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:24:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 23445 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 20:29:26 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:29:26 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000223152926.F23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223083210.B871@localhost> <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223115433.B8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net> <20000223135245.B23044@linuxpower.org> <20000223144032.Y28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223144032.Y28173@nacs.net>; from Jason M. Felice on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:40:32PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:40:32PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:52:45PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:21:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:54:33AM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > > Now this is interesting. If you go to amazon.com and specify a search for > > > > "chaplin dvd" you come up with a bunch of stuff like this, implying that > > > > public domain movies are being sold with CSS and region coding... > > > > > > UHG! WILL PEOPLE PLEASE STOP EQUATING REGION CODING WITH CSS?!?!?! > > > > > > PUT THIS IN THE DAMN FAQ! > > > > Done. How ya want to phrase the question? > > Q: I have a DVD that says it is a region 1 DVD. Does that mean it uses CSS > encryption? > A: No. There is no relation between region coding and CSS encryption. As an > example, if you were trying to discover whether CSS-encoded DVDs with > pubic domain content exist and you find a Charlie Chaplin movie on DVD > circa 1917, it isn't enough to note that the DVD is restricted to a > particular region. > > DVD's are region coded.> > > Bah, I just read over that, and I highly doubt that you would find a DVD > circa 1917.... I'm on my way out the door - you fix it ;) > For that matter, what exactly is "pubic domain content"? I wasn't aware that there were any CSS-protected porn DVD's out there. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 15:38:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30571 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:38:21 -0500 Received: from mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (ftp1.imagine-sw.com [206.232.17.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30558 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:38:20 -0500 Received: from metermaid.imagine_ny.com (metermaid [192.9.201.29]) by mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA28605 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:42:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from imagine-sw.com by metermaid.imagine_ny.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA27166; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:38:24 -0500 Message-ID: <38B4453A.A26CD67@imagine-sw.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:38:18 -0500 From: Francisco Figueirido Organization: Imagine Software, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <20000223172508.22881.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223134710.A23044@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Elsewhere in this forum we're beginning to discuss what constitutes a program. > So far, the best answer seems to be that a "program" is a set of instructions > written in a computing language that meets the criteria of Turing completeness. > This seems to me a very sensible way of distinguishing a "program" from a set > of data used to simply replicate a result. MPEG-2 and CSS do not fit this > criteria, while DeCSS, the Xing player and quite probably the interactive > application contained on a DVD do. > Hmmm... I haven't yet come accross this `best answer.' But I think it is fundamentally flawed, for one reason: it does not allow you to determine whether a given collection of bits is a `program' or not. Why? Because it hinges on the computer language (source? object?) rather than on the collection itself. I might even be so bold as to put forth that there is NO way to decide whether a collection of bits is a `program' or not. The very notion of `program' (is this equal to `software'?) presuposes the existence of something that is programmed. In this sense, the discussion about whether a CSS encoded file constitutes a program or not is, in a theoretical sense (I should stress that this is not the same as a legal sense), moot. What might make sense is the narrower discussion of whether a CSS file represents instructions for a (known and agreed upon beforehand) computer language, or merely data. This requires that the parties agree on what the instruction set is. Without an instruction set there is no notion of program, IMHO. But maybe this is merely pushing the discussion in the direction of: what constitutes an instruction set? Some random Q/A ... Q. Is the (compiled) linux kernel a program or data? A1. It is a program for the Intel processors (debatable; it is data for microcode) A2. It is data for the Transmeta processors Q. Is a Lisp `program' program or data? A1. It is a program. A2. It is data with a lot of funny parentheses. Q. Is the (compiled for Intel processors) linux kernel program or data? A1. It might be a program for Intel processors. A2. It is definitely data for a PowerPC. Q. Is the uncompiled linux kernel program or data? A1. It is data for the C compiler. A2. It is a program if you have a C interpreter (?) -- Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com 400 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10017 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 15:54:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03583 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:54:42 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03580 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:54:41 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.17) with ESMTP id PAA19536 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:55:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id PAA10197; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:55:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:55:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002232055.PAA10197@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? In-Reply-To: <20000223141519.A8468@thud.reric.net> References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223083210.B871@localhost> <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223115433.B8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net> <20000223141519.A8468@thud.reric.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Eric Seppanen writes: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:21:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > > > UHG! WILL PEOPLE PLEASE STOP EQUATING REGION CODING WITH CSS?!?!?! > > > > PUT THIS IN THE DAMN FAQ! > > > I certainly never meant that they were equivalent, or that one implied the > other. > > But I don't think it's correct to say that they're completely > disconnected, either.... Also, they are both access control mechanisms as defined in section 1201 --- so, to the extent that we're arguing that 1201 itself is overly broad, or trying to demonstrate that by showing that copyright holders are abusing their privileges, either could serve as a useful example. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 15:58:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05043 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:58:30 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA05040 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:58:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 29270 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 20:59:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223205905.29269.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:59:05 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:59:05 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > If a stand alone CSS encryptor would acomplish anything > in court, I'd be willing to write it. Even if it doesn't > accomplish anything legaly, it would greatly enhance the > reddening of the MPAAs faces. By all means, HAVE AT IT. Nothing like a little rabbit punch to the MPAA's kidneys. I bet slashdot would announce it. Who knows, maybe someone will put out a linux distro on DVD that was created from ToCSS?? and REQUIRES DeCSS to be installed, comes with it, and grants access to all 3rd parties. That would be hillarious. Oh, if you do this, please don't hard-code the keys. I think this is a big defect in DeCSS. The keys should have been read from files so that the algorithm can be distributed separately from the keys. This makes getting the keys out easier too, since they are basically just a number. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:11:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA08618 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:11:02 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA08615 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:10:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 17168 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 21:11:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223211134.17166.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:11:34 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:11:34 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > I fail to see why they'd care, at least in court. It doesn't do > anything to screw around with their copyrights. It might allow anyone with the "ToCSS" program to authorize the use of "DeCSS" to access any copyrighted material they distribute. It would at least make the MPAA's lawyers contest such a claim. > > If a stand alone CSS encryptor would acomplish anything > > in court, I'd be willing to write it. Even if it doesn't > > accomplish anything legaly, it would greatly enhance the > > reddening of the MPAAs faces. The humor value alone would certainly justify the expense of time. On a more serious note, it would also promote the progress of encryption science by using the publicity of this case to educate people on the details of encryption / decryption processes. After puzzling though some of your paper on CSS's 2^16 attack, I actually went out and bought Schneier's book on Applied Cryptography so I could learn a little more about cryptography. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:21:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA13083 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:21:35 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA13080 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:21:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 23594 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 21:26:10 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:26:10 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000223162610.G23265@linuxpower.org> References: <200002232009.MAA31521@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002232009.MAA31521@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 12:09:59PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 12:09:59PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Steven Barker wrote: > >On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > >> > >> Given that I only need to identify one pair of interoperating > >> programs, I could also claim that the .vob files themselves are > >> programs, since they contain instructions in the mpeg2 syntax > > What MPEG systax? It's a compression output unless you want to say a tar.gz of a Edgar Alan Poe poem is a program. Ther program is the one that does all the work. Rob, where's that Turing Completeness #define? "Turing Completeness" (also known as Turing Equivalency and Turing Compliance) refers to the ability of a computing environment to perform all the functions of a Turing Machine. The Turing Machine was/is a hypothetical concept for a "Universal Machine" developed by Alan Turing in 1936; it essentially is the prototype design around which all modern computers grew. If a language can express and perform all the functions of a Turing Machine, it is said to be Turing Equivalent or Turing Complete. http://hissa.ncsl.nist.gov/~black/CRCDict/HTML/turingmachin.html http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/bio/part3.html http://obiwan.uvi.edu/computing/turing/work.htm Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:24:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14339 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:24:48 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA14280 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:24:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 19242 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 21:25:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223212520.19241.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:25:20 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:25:20 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > In the copyright, authority is relinguished to 'descramble' the work, > with a condition that it is used for home viewing. It is arguable that > DeCSS actually permanently 'removes' the protection and possibly for a > purpose other than *just* home viewing. Hence no authority. Ahh, but wonderfully, this IS fair use. Access is inherently required for viewing. True fair use doesn't grant access, but access control doesn't impair fair use either, under 1201(c)(1). Once you can access, you can use fair use to make non-infringing copies. > The difference comes from DeCSS being used in a way and in an > environment where the descrambled outcome is left for all to see, unlike > in the case of players which (probably because of DVDCCA licencing > requirements) carefully make it as difficult as possible to copy the > decrypted stuff anywhere. Well it's not left for all to see, just those that have accounts on your home computer :-] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:27:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14871 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:27:24 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA14868 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:27:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 23604 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 21:32:00 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:32:00 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Message-ID: <20000223163200.H23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223211134.17166.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223211134.17166.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:11:34PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:11:34PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > I fail to see why they'd care, at least in court. It doesn't do > > anything to screw around with their copyrights. > > It might allow anyone with the "ToCSS" program to authorize the use of > "DeCSS" to access any copyrighted material they distribute. It would at > least make the MPAA's lawyers contest such a claim. Ehh.. I kinda doubt it. I think the judge would see it for what it is - a cynical attempt to play games with the court. > > > > If a stand alone CSS encryptor would acomplish anything > > > in court, I'd be willing to write it. Even if it doesn't > > > accomplish anything legaly, it would greatly enhance the > > > reddening of the MPAAs faces. > > The humor value alone would certainly justify the expense of time. > > On a more serious note, it would also promote the progress of > encryption science by using the publicity of this case to educate > people on the details of encryption / decryption processes. After > puzzling though some of your paper on CSS's 2^16 attack, I actually > went out and bought Schneier's book on Applied Cryptography so I could > learn a little more about cryptography. While I wish I could take credit for it, I'm afraid Frank wrote the paper, not I. (Captain! We have an attribution breach! Eject the warp core!) Schneier's book is damned good. Everyone should have it on their shelf. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:35:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA17858 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:01 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA17855 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:00 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.224.25]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000223213505.YDRP17030.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:05 -0500 Message-ID: <38B40EBA.D4473519@sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:45:46 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... References: <20000222231602.21704.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > > I am not sure what you mean by ambigous here. The cite I provided > > states that the exception was not meant to apply to circumvention of > > access controls on audio-visual products. That seems very > > non-ambigous on refering to DVDs. > It's ambiguous in it's reference to the law, since 1201(f)(1) is > consistent with the statement, but the quote cannot be reconciled with > the plain text of 1201(f)(2). I think the author has clearly made a > mistake in interpretation of the law. You make some further important points below, but I just wanted to highlight this last statement. It is perfectly clear that Kaplan quoted the wrong section. He quoted 1201(f)(1), which applies 'notwithstanding the provisions of ss. (a)(1)(A); the section he ought to have quoted was 1201(f)(2). These are worded quite differently: what do we do with a situation like this, where the Judge clearly erred in his interpretation of the law, but where the correct interpretation may not necessarily help us? It may not help us at trial, but it may help in an appeal. Anyways, I just wanted to highlight that point - errors in Kaplan's interpretation of the statute *must* be foremost on our minds here. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:35:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA18282 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:15 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA17859 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:04 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.224.25]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000223213513.YDTL17030.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:13 -0500 Message-ID: <38B413E5.EB967822@sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:07:49 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... References: <20000223154423.8269.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223111636.C22706@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > As Dana pointed out, the interactive nature of DVD media could technically > constitute a "program", even while "CSS" (as a scrambling method) does > not. Is this the "other program" you believe the independently created > computer program enables interoperability with? As I pointed out in another post, both approaches (DVD media as "program, and CSS as "program") may be valid: I'm not sure why you choose the former over the latter as more plausible (from a legal standpoint: Dana has effectively demonstrated that it is plausible from a technical standpoint). I still hold the view that a court would be more comfortable in finding that CSS as a device/method is more consistent with the idea of a "computer program". Either way, nothing prevents us from arguing -both-. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:35:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA18349 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:21 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA18283 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:15 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.224.25]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000223213520.YDVS17030.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:20 -0500 Message-ID: <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:19:26 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: (I have been following the thread related to (ii) below, and have great difficulty with it... > (ii) (a)(2) and (b) hinder receipt of published information > (Griswold, et al.) and hinder fair use private performance. > (a) Private performance is protected by 106 -> 120 > [ yes, this must be more specific ] fair use, and > by USSC decisions [ Yes, must find refs ] > (b) 1201(a)(2) and (b) "primary purpose" is too > restrictive of "right to read" (Griswold, Martin v. > Struthers), "right to receive" (Stanely v. Georgia), > "freedom of inquiry" (Weimann v. Updegraff). > (c) 1201(a)(2) and (b) devices could be used to make > private performance, but are restricted. > (d) Restriction of private performance > implicates all of (ii)(b), which derive from Amend. > I and IX. Scope of these rights much larger than > fair use performance alone. > (e) The Court must not allow 1201(a)(2) and (b) to > restrict private performance, right to read or > the right to receive non-infringing duplicates. Insofar as the above is derived from the supposed 'right' of fair use that has been floating around these threads, this is as good a time as any to point out that fair use is not a right, but a *defence* to copyright infringment. Fair use does not exist outside a claim of infringment: it is not a "right" that exists vis-a-vis any work protected. If a copyright owner can effectively prevent you from taking advantage of your defence of fair use by depriving you of the opportunity of accessing their copyrighted work in the first place, or infringing the copyright in the work, fair use is simply *not an issue*. You do not have the right to access a work against the wishes of a copyright owner BECAUSE you want to exercise your defence of fair use. I just don't think any fair use argument is going to be successful. There may still be substance in the 'private performance' arguments, etc. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:35:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA18446 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:25 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA18306 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:19 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.224.25]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000223213528.YDXF17030.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:28 -0500 Message-ID: <38B45019.320C67A7@sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:24:41 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <20000222210846.16836.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> <20000222193211.I20634@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:08:46PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > > > Why do you say LiViD is? The interoperating programs are DeCSS > > > > and the CSS encryption program. The protected activity is exactly > > like > > one word processor reading another's files. FIle's are > > created by > > > > some program A and are read by program B (which might be the > > > > same as A or might be a watered down version). You look at B and > > > > create program C that can read program A's files. You have reverse > > > > engineered program B to create C which interoperates with A. > > > > > > Bryan, CSS isn't a program. It's an encryption method. > > > > It appears that 1201(f)(2) contains no text requiring that you know the > > correct name for the program that you are interoperating with. Why > > don't you respond to the original point that shows DeCSS fits the > > language of 1201(f)(2) instead of raising non-issues like program > > names. > > Who said anything about program names? I'm making the distinction > between the Xing player, DeCSS, the underlying multimedia programmming > and the scrambling method that is known as CSS. Which one are *you* > calling CSS? > > > You are really quibbling here, especially because I didn't even refer > > to any program by the name CSS. 'CSS encryption program' DESCRIBES (if > > it doesn't name) the program used by the DVD suppliers that implements > > the CSS encryption method. > > And you're rationalizing, because you have your little pet theory and > can't let go of it. In order to hold onto that theory, you're either > intentionally or unintentionally trying to blur the lines and confuse > the technical aspects of this case. One of the ways you're doing this > is by claiming that the RE exemption applies because it was done to achieve > interoperability between LiViD and CSS. When it is pointed out to you > that "CSS" - the scrambling method as defined in court - probably does > not meet the "program" criteria (which is clearly spelled out in 1201) > you start playing word games. All of the above is perfectly sound, but I take issue with the idea that arguing that the DVD data -itself- fits any more comfortably within the definition of 'program' than does CSS, as has also been argued in these threads. Either -both- are simply sophist word games, or both are plausible and ought to be flushed out some more so that they don't -sound- like misleading word games. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:35:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA18598 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:30 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA18575 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:29 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.224.25]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000223213535.YDZR17030.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:35:35 -0500 Message-ID: <38B4521D.E267A147@sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:33:17 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... References: <20000223154423.8269.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > No, I'm talking about the copyright licence to the data files, not to > the reverse engineered program. DeCSS is copyrighted under the GPL, I > believe. I'm saying that the last phrase of 1201(f)(2) which limits the > exception to non-infringing uses means that you couldn't make your own > software listener to decrypt a hypothetical internet broadcast of a > movie, because you don't have a licence to view the movie in the first > place. With DVD, you have licenced the movie copyright, so this limit > on the exception doesn't apply. What Rob and others are trying to point out, however, is that -before- you get to the "to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringment under this title" stage, you must first fit within the phrase "enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program *with other programs*". This has been far from demonstrated. On the subject of whether DeCSS fits within the (f)(2) exception (which the judge incorrectly failed to consider: he considered (f)(1)), there appear to me, after reading this huge thread on the subject, to be three possibilities: (1) Neither the DVD data, nor the encryption device (CSS) is a "program", therefore we do not fit within the exception; (2) The DVD data is not a "program", but the encryption device (CSS) can plausibly be considered a "program" or an essential component thereof, therefore fitting us within the exception; (3) The DVD data (i.e. the encrypted movie in DVD format) falls within the definition of "program", clearly bringing us within the exception in (f)(2). These are really the only non-constitutional avenues of victory in this case, so BOTH (2) and (3) ought to be flushed out as far as they can go to see if they can be plausibly argued without sounding like misleading rationalizations of piracy (which is how Kaplan sees it now: remember, the aim here is not to cloak the fact that he's right, but to impress upon him that his assumptions are wrong.) I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:46:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA23408 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:46:35 -0500 Received: from dial66.roadrunner.com (dial66.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA23403 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:46:32 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial66.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00739 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:49:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:49:49 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Message-ID: <20000223144949.A658@localhost> References: <20000223211134.17166.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223211134.17166.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:11:34PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Please see Doug Hudson's 12:30pm Feb. 23, 2000 post for a note about patents and CSS: At 12:30pm on Feb. 23, 2000, Doug Hudson wrote: >A search in the IBM patent database of CSS & encryption revealed: > >The most relevant patent is U.S. 6,009,171, entitled "Apparatus, method and >computer program product for protecting copyright data within a computer >system." It directly describes part of the CSS algorithm, and was issued at >the end of December. (This explains why they didn't sue for patent >infringement right away -- assuming they believe the patent is valid.) >(IBM) > >Another relevant patent is U.S. 5,910,987, entitled "Systems and methods for >secure transaction management and electronic rights protection." >(InterTrust Tech.) > >You don't have to be a lawyer to guess that these may be the next line of >attack against DeCSS. IANAL. [ ... ] This opens a very interesting question. Can patents be used to limit access ("read", "perform") to material covered by copyright law? Can in effect, the U.S. Patent Office take away what (by my reading) the First Amendment guarantees? There is probably a connection to court cases saying one patent cannot be used to force the licensing of a second patent. Sorry, I don't remember refs right now. Paul Fenimore ------ On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:11:34PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > I fail to see why they'd care, at least in court. It doesn't do > > anything to screw around with their copyrights. > > It might allow anyone with the "ToCSS" program to authorize the use of > "DeCSS" to access any copyrighted material they distribute. It would at > least make the MPAA's lawyers contest such a claim. > > > > If a stand alone CSS encryptor would acomplish anything > > > in court, I'd be willing to write it. Even if it doesn't > > > accomplish anything legaly, it would greatly enhance the > > > reddening of the MPAAs faces. > > The humor value alone would certainly justify the expense of time. > > On a more serious note, it would also promote the progress of > encryption science by using the publicity of this case to educate > people on the details of encryption / decryption processes. After > puzzling though some of your paper on CSS's 2^16 attack, I actually > went out and bought Schneier's book on Applied Cryptography so I could > learn a little more about cryptography. > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:54:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA26258 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:54:43 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA26196 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:54:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 23617 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 21:58:57 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:58:57 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000223165857.I23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000222210846.16836.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> <20000222193211.I20634@linuxpower.org> <38B45019.320C67A7@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38B45019.320C67A7@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:24:41PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:24:41PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > And you're rationalizing, because you have your little pet theory and > > can't let go of it. In order to hold onto that theory, you're either > > intentionally or unintentionally trying to blur the lines and confuse > > the technical aspects of this case. One of the ways you're doing this > > is by claiming that the RE exemption applies because it was done to achieve > > interoperability between LiViD and CSS. When it is pointed out to you > > that "CSS" - the scrambling method as defined in court - probably does > > not meet the "program" criteria (which is clearly spelled out in 1201) > > you start playing word games. > > All of the above is perfectly sound, but I take issue with the idea that > arguing that the DVD data -itself- fits any more comfortably within the > definition of 'program' than does CSS, as has also been argued in these > threads. Either -both- are simply sophist word games, or both are > plausible and ought to be flushed out some more so that they don't > -sound- like misleading word games. To be honest, I tend to agree with you. It's a technicality. We need to begin by establishing a definition of "program", which I believe would be arguable based on the Turing Completeness of the "language" in which it is written. Code in C would be a program; code in HTML would not. If we begin with the qualification of Turing Completeness, and we can show that the code involved in the DVD interactive software fits this criteria, then that goes a long way to getting us there. DVD isn't just a movie slapped onto a disc; there's a whole interactive envelope that surrounds it that lets you choose program options, etc. But you're right. It's mainly a technicality. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 16:57:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA27333 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:57:31 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA27329 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:57:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 6662 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 21:53:31 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 21:53:31 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10164; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:58:07 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:58:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200002232158.NAA10164@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Digital Versatile Disc. Not D. Video D. Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ian Hay wrote: >greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >All of the above is perfectly sound, but I take issue with the idea that >arguing that the DVD data -itself- fits any more comfortably within the >definition of 'program' than does CSS, as has also been argued in these >threads. Either -both- are simply sophist word games, or both are >plausible and ought to be flushed out some more so that they don't >-sound- like misleading word games. There's a problem here. In the discussion earlier it was discovered that when the court reads the acronym DVD it includes the xtras. DVD is digital versatile disc, not digital video disc. No one here is saying that the film recording that is part (**keyword**) of the DVD is software. As defined by the phrase digital versatile disc, the video and audio portions are not the whole but only part of the thing called DVD. CSS on the other hand is one homogenous concept a system used to encrypt. > >I. >-- > ____ >| | Ian R. Hay >|____| Toronto, Canada > > Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:01:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA29279 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:01:18 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA29275 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:01:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 11240 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 22:01:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223220154.11239.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:01:54 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:01:54 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > Where no 'authority' can be granted, none should be required !! I think the way to make the arguement is to claim that the MPAA doesn't have 'standing' since they do not represent interests with valid copyrights over ALL of the DVD's. The law's use of the word 'THE' in 'authority of the copyright holder' is a dubious factual assumption hard coded into the law. It is clearly defective, because neither existence nor uniqueness of 'the' copyright holder is guaranteed. The public domain movies and alternative DVD's made with a "ToCSS" program would show that this is not even the case in this case. Similarly, one studio hypothetically could grant things that others deny. We could argue that this defect makes the law meaningless, invalid, and void. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:03:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA30833 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:03:59 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA30801 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:03:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 23670 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 22:08:34 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:08:34 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000223170834.J23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:19:26PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:19:26PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > (I have been following the thread related to (ii) below, and have great > difficulty with it... > > > (ii) (a)(2) and (b) hinder receipt of published information > > (Griswold, et al.) and hinder fair use private performance. > > (a) Private performance is protected by 106 -> 120 > > [ yes, this must be more specific ] fair use, and > > by USSC decisions [ Yes, must find refs ] > > (b) 1201(a)(2) and (b) "primary purpose" is too > > restrictive of "right to read" (Griswold, Martin v. > > Struthers), "right to receive" (Stanely v. Georgia), > > "freedom of inquiry" (Weimann v. Updegraff). > > (c) 1201(a)(2) and (b) devices could be used to make > > private performance, but are restricted. > > (d) Restriction of private performance > > implicates all of (ii)(b), which derive from Amend. > > I and IX. Scope of these rights much larger than > > fair use performance alone. > > (e) The Court must not allow 1201(a)(2) and (b) to > > restrict private performance, right to read or > > the right to receive non-infringing duplicates. > > Insofar as the above is derived from the supposed 'right' of fair use > that has been floating around these threads, this is as good a time as > any to point out that fair use is not a right, but a *defence* to > copyright infringment. Fair use does not exist outside a claim of > infringment: it is not a "right" that exists vis-a-vis any work > protected. If a copyright owner can effectively prevent you from taking > advantage of your defence of fair use by depriving you of the > opportunity of accessing their copyrighted work in the first place, or > infringing the copyright in the work, fair use is simply *not an > issue*. You do not have the right to access a work against the wishes > of a copyright owner BECAUSE you want to exercise your defence of fair > use. > > I just don't think any fair use argument is going to be successful. > There may still be substance in the 'private performance' arguments, > etc. Ian, you just earned yourself a spot in the FAQ. I'd like to take the above passage almost verbatim to address the "fair use" question; a lot of people here, including myself, have made the above error. If you will be so kind as to drop me an email with a one or two-sentence bio, I'll be sure to list you on the contributors list. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:06:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31795 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:06:59 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA31792 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:06:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 7426 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 22:02:59 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 22:02:58 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11310; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:07:35 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:07:35 -0800 Message-Id: <200002232207.OAA11310@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ian Hay wrote: >greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >> As Dana pointed out, the interactive nature of DVD media could technically >> constitute a "program", even while "CSS" (as a scrambling method) does >> not. Is this the "other program" you believe the independently created >> computer program enables interoperability with? > >As I pointed out in another post, both approaches (DVD media as >"program, and CSS as "program") may be valid: I'm not sure why you >choose the former over the latter as more plausible (from a legal >standpoint: Dana has effectively demonstrated that it is plausible from >a technical standpoint). I still hold the view that a court would be >more comfortable in finding that CSS as a device/method is more >consistent with the idea of a "computer program". > >Either way, nothing prevents us from arguing -both-. As I just pointed out Digital Versatile Disc. Many parts including data. CSS is many parts doing the same thing encrypting. Not much in the way of data. And no the datastream to be encrypted is not part of the method. It is only the object which gets encrypted otherwise food would be argued as being part of the digestive process. If that were true no one would ever feel hunger. But in fact digestion goes on whether there's food or not. When it gets to the point that the acids are no longer burning food the acids don't stop burning they continue which produces the feeling of a need to consume something so you don't end up in a Klein commercial. >I. >-- > ____ >| | Ian R. Hay >|____| Toronto, Canada > > Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:10:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00650 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:10:03 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA00647 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:10:02 -0500 Received: (qmail 7739 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 22:06:03 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 22:06:03 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11589; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:10:39 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:10:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200002232210.OAA11589@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:24:41PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: >> greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> > >> > And you're rationalizing, because you have your little pet theory and >> > can't let go of it. In order to hold onto that theory, you're either >> > intentionally or unintentionally trying to blur the lines and confuse >> > the technical aspects of this case. One of the ways you're doing this >> > is by claiming that the RE exemption applies because it was done to achieve >> > interoperability between LiViD and CSS. When it is pointed out to you >> > that "CSS" - the scrambling method as defined in court - probably does >> > not meet the "program" criteria (which is clearly spelled out in 1201) >> > you start playing word games. >> >> All of the above is perfectly sound, but I take issue with the idea that >> arguing that the DVD data -itself- fits any more comfortably within the >> definition of 'program' than does CSS, as has also been argued in these >> threads. Either -both- are simply sophist word games, or both are >> plausible and ought to be flushed out some more so that they don't >> -sound- like misleading word games. > >To be honest, I tend to agree with you. It's a technicality. We need to >begin by establishing a definition of "program", which I believe would be >arguable based on the Turing Completeness of the "language" in which it >is written. Code in C would be a program; code in HTML would not. > >If we begin with the qualification of Turing Completeness, and we can show >that the code involved in the DVD interactive software fits this criteria, >then that goes a long way to getting us there. DVD isn't just a movie >slapped onto a disc; there's a whole interactive envelope that surrounds >it that lets you choose program options, etc. > >But you're right. It's mainly a technicality. Okay this is the last I'm mentioning this I've argued this in several other posts (2 actually) :) Digital Versatile Disc. A variety of parts and uses. CSS. Many parts that do only one thing: encrypt. >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:13:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02631 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:13:23 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA02628 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:13:22 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA16682 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:14:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B45B6A.51F4904F@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:12:58 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... References: <20000223154423.8269.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223111636.C22706@linuxpower.org> <38B413E5.EB967822@sympatico.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ian Hay wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > As Dana pointed out, the interactive nature of DVD media could technically > > constitute a "program", even while "CSS" (as a scrambling method) does > > not. Is this the "other program" you believe the independently created > > computer program enables interoperability with? > > As I pointed out in another post, both approaches (DVD media as > "program, and CSS as "program") may be valid: I'm not sure why you > choose the former over the latter as more plausible (from a legal > standpoint: Dana has effectively demonstrated that it is plausible from > a technical standpoint). I still hold the view that a court would be > more comfortable in finding that CSS as a device/method is more > consistent with the idea of a "computer program". > > Either way, nothing prevents us from arguing -both-. > > I. > -- > ____ > | | Ian R. Hay > |____| Toronto, Canada Forgive me if this is inane, IANAE (I am not an engineer). CSS is BOTH a scrambling and unscrambling system. The program that adds CSS to a given title may not enter in to the question, but the program that descrambles it lives in every DVD player as a set of instructions that tells the hardware what to do with the keys to unlock the disc. Doesn't it? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:24:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06798 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:24:02 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06795 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:23:58 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02147 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:23:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:23:14 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate Message-ID: <20000223172313.B28173@nacs.net> References: <20000223212520.19241.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223212520.19241.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:25:20PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > In the copyright, authority is relinguished to 'descramble' the work, > > with a condition that it is used for home viewing. It is arguable > that > > DeCSS actually permanently 'removes' the protection and possibly for > a > > purpose other than *just* home viewing. Hence no authority. > > Ahh, but wonderfully, this IS fair use. Access is inherently required > for viewing. True fair use doesn't grant access, but access control > doesn't impair fair use either, under 1201(c)(1). Once you can access, > you can use fair use to make non-infringing copies. The access control in this case is intended to control the access by the DVD players and not by the licensed users. A subtlety, but one that gets ignored quite often. If you note, the player is required to satisfy the "application of information", the user isn't even aware of this and certainly is not required to submit a key. > > > The difference comes from DeCSS being used in a way and in an > > environment where the descrambled outcome is left for all to see, > unlike > > in the case of players which (probably because of DVDCCA licencing > > requirements) carefully make it as difficult as possible to copy the > > decrypted stuff anywhere. > Well it's not left for all to see, just those that have accounts on > your home computer :-] > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:28:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA08495 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:28:37 -0500 Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts1.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.139]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA08492 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:28:36 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.224.110]) by tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000223222845.BRSA13123.tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:28:45 -0500 Message-ID: <38B46048.4582F47B@sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:33:44 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA References: <20000222210846.16836.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> <20000222193211.I20634@linuxpower.org> <38B45019.320C67A7@sympatico.ca> <20000223165857.I23265@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:24:41PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > > > And you're rationalizing, because you have your little pet theory and > > > can't let go of it. In order to hold onto that theory, you're either > > > intentionally or unintentionally trying to blur the lines and confuse > > > the technical aspects of this case. One of the ways you're doing this > > > is by claiming that the RE exemption applies because it was done to achieve > > > interoperability between LiViD and CSS. When it is pointed out to you > > > that "CSS" - the scrambling method as defined in court - probably does > > > not meet the "program" criteria (which is clearly spelled out in 1201) > > > you start playing word games. > > > > All of the above is perfectly sound, but I take issue with the idea that > > arguing that the DVD data -itself- fits any more comfortably within the > > definition of 'program' than does CSS, as has also been argued in these > > threads. Either -both- are simply sophist word games, or both are > > plausible and ought to be flushed out some more so that they don't > > -sound- like misleading word games. > > To be honest, I tend to agree with you. It's a technicality. We need to > begin by establishing a definition of "program", which I believe would be > arguable based on the Turing Completeness of the "language" in which it > is written. Code in C would be a program; code in HTML would not. > > If we begin with the qualification of Turing Completeness, and we can show > that the code involved in the DVD interactive software fits this criteria, > then that goes a long way to getting us there. DVD isn't just a movie > slapped onto a disc; there's a whole interactive envelope that surrounds > it that lets you choose program options, etc. When faced with a problem like this, I like to go to the statute. I've looked for a US definition of "computer program" in my copy of Black's, but none exists. Fortunately for us in Canada, "computer program" is defined right in the _Copyright Act_: s.2: "computer program" means a set of instructions or statements, expressed, fixed, embodied or stored in any manner, that is to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a specific result. In the Canadian context, "or indirectly" might allow the necessarily incomplete aspects of CSS protection/encoding and/or the executable elements of the DVD media itself to be brought into the definition. Anyone have a clue if "computer program" has actually been judicially defined in copyright or other legislation or caselaw? I just think it ought to be determined definitively before we start making up our own definitions based on Turing Completeness. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:31:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09721 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:31:47 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA09718 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:31:46 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA23350 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:32:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B45FBB.611E03C0@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:31:23 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Digital Versatile Disc. Not D. Video D. References: <200002232158.NAA10164@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------3B33F6C5E47002654DEAEF17" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --------------3B33F6C5E47002654DEAEF17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rares Marian wrote: > Ian Hay wrote: > >greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > >All of the above is perfectly sound, but I take issue with the idea that > >arguing that the DVD data -itself- fits any more comfortably within the > >definition of 'program' than does CSS, as has also been argued in these > >threads. Either -both- are simply sophist word games, or both are > >plausible and ought to be flushed out some more so that they don't > >-sound- like misleading word games. > > There's a problem here. In the discussion earlier it was discovered that when the court reads the acronym DVD it includes the xtras. DVD is digital versatile disc, not digital video disc. No one here is saying that the film recording that is part (**keyword**) of the DVD is software. As defined by the phrase digital versatile disc, the video and audio portions are not the whole but only part of the thing called DVD. CSS on the other hand is one homogenous concept a system used to encrypt. > > Red Herring alert. Officially, no matter what you read, DVD is DVD, and it doesn't "mean" anything. It's a made-up noun, a handy way of identifying a 12cm polycarbonate platter that conforms to the DVD specs, or a player that plays such. Placing words behind the letters is a word game. There's nothing in this acronym that matters, because the DVD Forum could call anything they like DVD, and they can say the letters stand for anything they like (and they do). So could you, and so can the court. (but you can't use the logo without licensing it.) And yes, I AM saying that the film recording (ie; the audio/visual data) IS software, and that it is a program (or part of a program) designed to control DVD hardware. Every disc is different, depending not only on how it is programmed, but the program is different depending on the unique audio/visual data. IOW, you can use EXACTLY the same features and extras (or lack of them) on any two different sets of audio/visual data (movies) and the programs will still be entirely different. You cannot just plug A/V components into a DVD authoring system/formatter and come up with a DVD. Each application is unique and customized based on the movie. (going slightly off-topic) This is one of the reasons why it would be so difficult to create an on-the-fly DVD Video recording format that will work on existing players. You have to know what you're going to record before you record it, you can't just lay it down and go back later and plug in chapter breaks, and indices, and navigaton controls. etc. --------------3B33F6C5E47002654DEAEF17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rares Marian wrote:

Ian Hay <ian.hay@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>greslin@linuxpower.org wrote:
>
>All of the above is perfectly sound, but I take issue with the idea that
>arguing that the DVD data -itself- fits any more comfortably within the
>definition of 'program' than does CSS, as has also been argued in these
>threads.  Either -both- are simply sophist word games, or both are
>plausible and ought to be flushed out some more so that they don't
>-sound- like misleading word games.

There's a problem here.  In the discussion earlier it was discovered that when the court reads the acronym DVD it includes the xtras.  DVD is digital versatile disc, not digital video disc.  No one here is saying that the film recording that is part (**keyword**) of the DVD is software.  As defined by the phrase digital versatile disc, the video and audio portions are not the whole but only part of the thing called DVD.  CSS on the other hand is one homogenous concept a system used to encrypt.
 
 

Red Herring alert.

Officially, no matter what you read, DVD is DVD, and it doesn't "mean" anything. It's a made-up noun, a handy way of identifying a 12cm polycarbonate platter that conforms to the DVD specs, or a player that plays such. Placing words behind the letters is a word game. There's nothing in this acronym that matters, because the DVD Forum could call anything they like DVD, and they can say the letters stand for anything they like (and they do). So could you, and so can the court. (but you can't use the logo without licensing it.)

And yes, I AM saying that the film recording (ie; the audio/visual data) IS software, and that it is a program (or part of a program) designed to control DVD hardware. Every disc is different, depending not only on how it is programmed, but the program is different depending on the unique audio/visual data.

IOW, you can use EXACTLY the same features and extras (or lack of them) on any two different sets of audio/visual data (movies) and the programs will still be entirely different. You cannot just plug A/V components into a DVD authoring system/formatter and come up with a DVD. Each application is unique and customized based on the movie.

(going slightly off-topic) This is one of the reasons why it would be so difficult to create an on-the-fly DVD Video recording format that will work on existing players. You have to know what you're going to record before you record it, you can't just lay it down and go back later and plug in chapter breaks, and indices, and navigaton controls. etc. --------------3B33F6C5E47002654DEAEF17-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:35:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11574 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:35:23 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11571 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:35:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 10031 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 22:31:23 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 22:31:23 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA13995; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:35:59 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:35:59 -0800 Message-Id: <200002232235.OAA13995@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DDanger Will Robinson is the decryption mechanism within the hardware? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >Ian Hay wrote: > >> greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> >> > As Dana pointed out, the interactive nature of DVD media could technically >> > constitute a "program", even while "CSS" (as a scrambling method) does >> > not. Is this the "other program" you believe the independently created >> > computer program enables interoperability with? >> >> As I pointed out in another post, both approaches (DVD media as >> "program, and CSS as "program") may be valid: I'm not sure why you >> choose the former over the latter as more plausible (from a legal >> standpoint: Dana has effectively demonstrated that it is plausible from >> a technical standpoint). I still hold the view that a court would be >> more comfortable in finding that CSS as a device/method is more >> consistent with the idea of a "computer program". >> >> Either way, nothing prevents us from arguing -both-. >> >> I. >> -- >> ____ >> | | Ian R. Hay >> |____| Toronto, Canada > >Forgive me if this is inane, IANAE (I am not an engineer). CSS is BOTH a >scrambling and unscrambling system. The program that adds CSS to a given title >may not enter in to the question, but the program that descrambles it lives in >every DVD player as a set of instructions that tells the hardware what to do >with the keys to unlock the disc. Doesn't it? > Okay this could suck. Then that would prove DeCSS is circumvention and now we know why demonstrating is bad. The mechanism to decrypt is already available in the machine. What DeCSS should have done is provide a piece of software that properly accesses that mechanism. Instead it does an end-run around. If that's the case we need to watch it. Attack 1201, but watch out when you get to this point. If we can argue that it is reasonable that the DeCSS coders might not have known every detail about the way to interface the DVD machine then we can at least go half way. That is decrypting was a method parallel to interfacing with the mechanism. We could argue for the purposes of viewing the material DeCSS coders didn't see the other alternative because they assumed it was software decrypted anyway on the other leading platform, or that they had no other information. Then we get to countersue on Anti-trust violations. If we get Johansen off the hook I still want the MPAA to be held responsible for their actions. Though I can wait on that a little while. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:38:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12775 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:38:25 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA12772 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:38:24 -0500 Received: (qmail 19313 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 22:38:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223223859.19312.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:38:59 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:38:59 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Patent issues To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > Two points: > (i) I don't remember the ref, but the supreme court has said you > can't use one patent to require licensing of a second patent. Patents > are not unlimitedly big sticks. Trying to regulate 1st amendment > protected aspects of fair use (private performance) with patents is likely > to run into problems. In US v Paramount (1948) the Court said the same thing about copyrights, when they declared the movie studio's 'block licencing' practices ran afoul of anti-trust laws against 'tying'. Their reasoning was based on precedent's from patents and the fact that copyrights and patents spawn from the same constitutional clause. I think their reasoning shows that you couldn't tie one IP licence to another. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:42:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13909 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:42:37 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA13906 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:42:36 -0500 Received: (qmail 20354 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Feb 2000 22:43:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223224316.20353.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:43:16 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:43:16 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > While I wish I could take credit for it, I'm afraid Frank wrote the > paper, not I. (Captain! We have an attribution breach! Eject the > warp core!) Whoops. I guess I need to take a break. I'm not even sure who I'm responding too anymore. I thought I was responding to Frank's post. > Schneier's book is damned good. Everyone should have it on their > shelf. Agreed. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:42:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13926 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:42:48 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA13923 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:42:47 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112] (may be forged)) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA03729 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:43:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000223094258.00af9ac0@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:43:24 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: <200002230425.XAA06999@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> References: <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 11:25 PM 2/22/00 -0500, rst@ai.mit.edu wrote: >Let me give it one more shot. Thanks for spelling it out. When made in its full detail, the argument goes beyond the "as applied" argument I was seeing. Let's see if I can get it right this time. If I read it correctly, you're arguing that Congress can't empower others to make "laws" (with access controls backed up by law) that Congress doesn't have the power to make directly. CSS is then a law of perpetual copyright with no fair use exception, invalid on its face even before the copyright term expires. It does sound like a Lessig-style argument: that the fact of regulation is more important than the mechanism of regulation. What's prohibited for one means of regulation shouldn't be permitted for another. The courts often don't recognize the similarity, and permit indirect regulation where direct legislation would be impermissible, but I'll dig for the cites where the argument is made, to see how we can use them. --Wendy >I'll start with a paraphrase of Rob Warren's point regarding fair use, >as I understand it. The DMCA (or more precisely, section 1201 of the >U.S. code), *looks* like it doesn't interfere with anyone's fair use >rights --- it says so itself, right in 1201(c)(1): "Nothing in this >section shall effect ... fair use". But Rob's claim, which I agree >with, is that even though section 1201 claims to leave the public all >its traditional fair use rights, its anti-circumvention provisions >in fact take them away, by making it insuperably difficult for the >public to exercise them. > >The way this situation arises is that the publisher is allowed to >impose access control devices, for instance, CSS or region coding. >Further, while 1201(a)(1)(A) et seq. allow those access control >devices to be bypassed for fair use (or other uses, if the Librarian >of Congress allows it --- viz. 1201(a)(1)(D)), members of the public >at large cannot obtain whatever technology they would need to actually >bypass them, since 1201(b) doesn't allow anyone to provide it. > >In this particular case, the effect is that anyone who wants to >exercise fair use rights to a CSS-protected DVD movie has to build >their own DVD player --- which is obviously beyond the capacity of >most of the general public. Particularly so when the MPAA is still >arguing in another court that crucial information they'd need to build >it --- the CSS specification itself --- is still trade secret. > >So far, I've argued (following Rob as closely as I could) that even >though the language of section 1201 claims (in 1201(c)(1)) to preserve >fair use rights, the effect of the anti-circumvention provisions is in >fact to obliterate them. I'd like to step back now and look at what >else those provisions might be doing. I'm going to be getting away >from the particulars of the case at hand for a moment --- bear with >me. > >To recapitulate, 1201 allows publishers to protect their content with >access controls, and makes it a crime for anyone to provide technology >which defeats those access controls. My first claim is that since >technology which would defeat the access control device has been >effectively criminalized by 1201(b), whatever restrictions are >embodied in the code of the access control device have effectively >acquired the force of law. [Paging Larry Lessig]. > >So, in effect, what section 1201 has done, even though the language of >the section doesn't explicitly say so, is to grant authors and >publishers a new right --- the right to control how, when, and where >the content is displayed in human-viewable form, by encoding whatever >restrictions they like in some access control device (in this case, >they include region codes, but it could be anything) which 1201 has >made insuperably difficult for the lay public to defeat. > >Which is fine as far as it goes --- the Constitution allows Congress >to establish exclusive rights of all kind. But those rights must >extend "for limited times" (article I, section 8). If Title 17 had >language that actually *said*: > > (1) Copyright holders have the exclusive right to control > the time, place and manner in which their works are displayed > or performed. > > (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, the rights > specified in paragraph (1) of this section shall not expire. > >then it would be plainly unconstitutional. But I'm arguing that the >language of 1201 has the same effect --- by allowing copyright holders >to embody their controls in an access control device which never times >out, and criminalizing distribution of any technology which could >defeat that device. wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:43:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA14084 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:43:30 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA14081 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:43:29 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.224.110]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000223224338.YSPN17030.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:43:38 -0500 Message-ID: <38B463C5.69086D18@sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:48:37 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... References: <20000223154423.8269.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223111636.C22706@linuxpower.org> <38B413E5.EB967822@sympatico.ca> <38B45B6A.51F4904F@cdpage.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: > > Ian Hay wrote: > > > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > > As Dana pointed out, the interactive nature of DVD media could technically > > > constitute a "program", even while "CSS" (as a scrambling method) does > > > not. Is this the "other program" you believe the independently created > > > computer program enables interoperability with? > > > > As I pointed out in another post, both approaches (DVD media as > > "program, and CSS as "program") may be valid: I'm not sure why you > > choose the former over the latter as more plausible (from a legal > > standpoint: Dana has effectively demonstrated that it is plausible from > > a technical standpoint). I still hold the view that a court would be > > more comfortable in finding that CSS as a device/method is more > > consistent with the idea of a "computer program". > > > > Either way, nothing prevents us from arguing -both-. > Forgive me if this is inane, IANAE (I am not an engineer). CSS is BOTH a > scrambling and unscrambling system. The program that adds CSS to a given title > may not enter in to the question, but the program that descrambles it lives in > every DVD player as a set of instructions that tells the hardware what to do > with the keys to unlock the disc. Doesn't it? IANAEE (I am not an engineer either). As Rob has pointed out, the fact that -a program- makes use of the CSS info on the DVD does not by itself make CSS a program. As to your second point, DeCSS does not attempt to interface with the program that does the decrypting, it attempts to -mimic- the program that does the decrypting. This only underlines the completely uncontroversial observation that DeCSS is a program - we need to establish a second "program" at the other end (i.e. either within the DVD data or in CSS itself.) What remains to be seen is whether either the DVD data or CSS can be seen as an -incomplete set of instructions- that are superimposed upon a program to fulfill the task of a program. (word overuse alert.) I think the key is determining whether either the DVD data or the CSS system embody -instructions- rather than simply static data. If either can be established, then I think we still have a shot under 1201(f)(2). I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 17:51:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18772 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:51:11 -0500 Received: from dial135.roadrunner.com (dial135.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA18768 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:51:08 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial135.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA00922 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:54:37 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:54:36 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000223155436.A763@localhost> References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:19:26PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:19:26PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > > (I have been following the thread related to (ii) below, and have great > difficulty with it... Paul Fenimore wrote: > (ii) (a)(2) and (b) hinder receipt of published information > (Griswold, et al.) and hinder fair use private performance. > (a) Private performance is protected by 106 -> 120 > [ yes, this must be more specific ] fair use, and > by USSC decisions [ Yes, must find refs ] > (b) 1201(a)(2) and (b) "primary purpose" is too > restrictive of "right to read" (Griswold, Martin v. > Struthers), "right to receive" (Stanely v. Georgia), > "freedom of inquiry" (Weimann v. Updegraff). > (c) 1201(a)(2) and (b) devices could be used to make > private performance, but are restricted. > (d) Restriction of private performance > implicates all of (ii)(b), which derive from Amend. > I and IX. Scope of these rights much larger than > fair use performance alone. > (e) The Court must not allow 1201(a)(2) and (b) to > restrict private performance, right to read or > the right to receive non-infringing duplicates. On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:19:26PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > Insofar as the above is derived from the supposed 'right' of fair use > that has been floating around these threads, this is as good a time as > any to point out that fair use is not a right, but a *defence* to > copyright infringment. Fair use does not exist outside a claim of > infringment: it is not a "right" that exists vis-a-vis any work > protected. I snipped some of your later text where you say that performance may be useful. Perhaps we're beating around the bush on terminology? I want to call private performance part of fair use because it looks to me like it is part of 17 USC 106(4) and 107. On the other hand, I don't think the fact that this aspect of fair use (like the rest of them) is statutory weakens the claim that private performance is also a constitutional matter (Griswold and Stanley decisions, to name two). Because what I'm really after is a part of fair use, and not necessarily the whole thing, perhaps I should not use "fair use", because it is too non-specific. I do have reservations about doing this, though. First, I want to stress that I'm not introducing some brand-new dimension to copyright law. Second, I want to also stress that mucking about with private performance has constitutional ramifications that go _way_ beyond Title 17. The "right to read" from Griswold is not a copyright case at all. Other cases are similarly distant from copyright (Stanley is basically a nuisance prosecution). I'm sorry I didn't respond the rest of your message, but I think this partial response may be useful. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 18:03:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA22378 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:03:28 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA22375 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:03:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 23864 invoked by uid 502); 23 Feb 2000 23:08:03 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:08:03 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000223180803.L23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000222210846.16836.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> <20000222193211.I20634@linuxpower.org> <38B45019.320C67A7@sympatico.ca> <20000223165857.I23265@linuxpower.org> <38B46048.4582F47B@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38B46048.4582F47B@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:33:44PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:33:44PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > > When faced with a problem like this, I like to go to the statute. I've > looked for a US definition of "computer program" in my copy of Black's, > but none exists. Fortunately for us in Canada, "computer program" is > defined right in the _Copyright Act_: > > s.2: "computer program" means a set of instructions or statements, > expressed, fixed, embodied or stored in any manner, that is to be used > directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a specific > result. Wow. It must be nice living in a country that uses law to clarify rather than to obscure. > In the Canadian context, "or indirectly" might allow the necessarily > incomplete aspects of CSS protection/encoding and/or the executable > elements of the DVD media itself to be brought into the definition. > Anyone have a clue if "computer program" has actually been judicially > defined in copyright or other legislation or caselaw? I just think it > ought to be determined definitively before we start making up our own > definitions based on Turing Completeness. If there's a legal definition of "program" in the U.S., I'm all for it. I hate adhoc'ing legal definitions. If we can't find a legal definition, we will have to argue an engineering one; if that's the case, I think TC would be a good faultline. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 18:11:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24375 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:11:12 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA24372 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:11:11 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id PAA11751 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:10:48 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:10:47 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DDanger Will Robinson is the decryption mechanism within the hardware? Message-ID: <20000223151047.V9666@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200002232235.OAA13995@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200002232235.OAA13995@ns1.filetron.com>; from rmarian@linuxstart.com on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:35:59PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian writes: > Okay this could suck. Then that would prove DeCSS is circumvention and now we know why demonstrating is bad. The mechanism to decrypt is already available in the machine. > > What DeCSS should have done is provide a piece of software that properly accesses that mechanism. Instead it does an end-run around. > > If that's the case we need to watch it. Attack 1201, but watch out when you get to this point. If we can argue that it is reasonable that the DeCSS coders might not have known every detail about the way to interface the DVD machine then we can at least go half way. > > That is decrypting was a method parallel to interfacing with the mechanism. We could argue for the purposes of viewing the material DeCSS coders didn't see the other alternative because they assumed it was software decrypted anyway on the other leading platform, or that they had no other information. This is ridiculous. DeCSS was published _to show a way to break CSS_. That's why it's called "DeCSS". Why do people want to break CSS? The most common reasons are, no doubt, piracy, minority platforms and other applications of unlicensed players, and content adaptation (not necessarily in that order). We have several accounts that say that Jon Johansen published the thing with the goal of providing Linux developers the information that they would need to write an open source Linux DVD video player. That information (the most important missing part) was what DeCSS illustrated by example: a way to break CSS. (If you prefer, I could say "descramble" or "decrypt" rather than "break", because it wasn't used to produce a general key-recovery scheme until Frank Stevenson took a look at it. So cryptanalytic usage wouldn't support "break" for what DeCSS does, but popular usage might; it was a way to decrypt CSS-encrypted data contrary to the wishes and intentions of the creators of that encrypted data.) The person or people who wrote DeCSS _obviously_ didn't care about the legal niceties of of the logical organization of an unlicensed DVD player under new US law, because (1) they probably weren't in the US (2) they were anonymous (3) they no doubt didn't believe that that law was legitimate (4) they thought that people should be able to decrypt CSS without the permission of the DVD CCA. I'll admit that we have no interview with these people to support these claims. But even if they were not so, why complain about how the original programmers wrote DeCSS? The industry didn't want the public to know how to break CSS; the programmers did. So they published the information necessary to accomplish this. Why should we second-guess them by saying that they "should have done" some more complicated and elaborate thing to get a bunch of Americans off on a legal technicality when they republished the code? If you _don't_ want CSS-decrypting source code to be available to the public in whatever form its authors decide to publish it, you can certainly find a nice alternative in the DVD CCA's and CSS ILO's licensing regime, in which the legitimacy of the code and its restriction to clearly legal forms and uses is unquestionable. To go back to technical stuff: to decrypt and play a DVD, you need to obtain a player key; to obtain a player key, you need to have someone tell you one (by entering a license agreement, by stealing one, or by reverse-engineering an existing player), or you need to figure one out for yourself (cryptanalytically). There is still no way you can produce an unlicensed player consistent with the intentions of the people who produced CSS. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 18:14:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA25053 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:14:05 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA25048 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:14:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 13392 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 23:10:04 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 23:10:04 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17433; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:14:41 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:14:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200002232314.PAA17433@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Color me DOH! Re: [dvd-discuss] Digital Versatile Disc. Not D. Video D. Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >And yes, I AM saying that the film recording (ie; the audio/visual data) IS software, and that it is a program (or part of a program) designed to control DVD hardware. Every disc is different, depending not only on how it is programmed, but the program is different depending on the unique audio/visual data. > >IOW, you can use EXACTLY the same features and extras (or lack of them) on any two different sets of audio/visual data (movies) and the programs will still be entirely different. You cannot just plug A/V components into a DVD authoring system/formatter and come up with a DVD. Each application is unique and customized based on the movie. Except that edges on the impossible. From complexity theory, I would argue you would need a program as big as the audio video data that comes from the original camera output itself if it was so sensitive to changes. Are you sure that's not the case only after CSS is performed? As a programmer I can't see that being very comfortable to use. In fact it would be nuts. I totally agree there's no point arguing after CSS is performed and that it is software, just that there happens to be a gigantic global variable/object called the movie. I mean if you had to make a DVD, how the hell could you put already made titles on DVD? You'd have to rerecord them. Note that is not happening yet. The tech for 3-D panoramic video cameras just came out. >(going slightly off-topic) This is one of the reasons why it would be so difficult to create an on-the-fly DVD Video recording format that will work on existing players. You have to know what you're going to record before you record it, you can't just lay it down and go back later and plug in chapter breaks, and indices, and navigaton controls. etc. > >--------------3B33F6C5E47002654DEAEF17 >Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > >Rares Marian wrote: >

Ian Hay wrote: >
>greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >
> >
>All of the above is perfectly sound, but I take issue with the idea >that >
>arguing that the DVD data -itself- fits any more comfortably within >the >
>definition of 'program' than does CSS, as has also been argued in >these >
>threads. Either -both- are simply sophist word games, or both >are >
>plausible and ought to be flushed out some more so that they don't >
>-sound- like misleading word games. >

There's a problem here. In the discussion earlier it was discovered >that when the court reads the acronym DVD it includes the xtras. >DVD is digital versatile disc, not digital video disc. No one here >is saying that the film recording that is part (**keyword**) of the DVD >is software. As defined by the phrase digital versatile disc, the >video and audio portions are not the whole but only part of the thing called >DVD. CSS on the other hand is one homogenous concept a system used >to encrypt. >
>

>Red Herring alert. >

Officially, no matter what you read, DVD is DVD, and it doesn't "mean" >anything. It's a made-up noun, a handy way of identifying a 12cm polycarbonate >platter that conforms to the DVD specs, or a player that plays such. Placing >words behind the letters is a word game. There's nothing in this acronym >that matters, because the DVD Forum could call anything they like DVD, >and they can say the letters stand for anything they like (and they do). >So could you, and so can the court. (but you can't use the logo without >licensing it.) >

And yes, I AM saying that the film recording (ie; the audio/visual data) >IS software, and that it is a program (or part of a program) designed to >control DVD hardware. Every disc is different, depending not only on how >it is programmed, but the program is different depending on the unique >audio/visual data. >

IOW, you can use EXACTLY the same features and extras (or lack of them) >on any two different sets of audio/visual data (movies) and the programs >will still be entirely different. You cannot just plug A/V components into >a DVD authoring system/formatter and come up with a DVD. Each application >is unique and customized based on the movie. >

(going slightly off-topic) This is one of the reasons why it would be >so difficult to create an on-the-fly DVD Video recording format that will >work on existing players. You have to know what you're going to record >before you record it, you can't just lay it down and go back later and >plug in chapter breaks, and indices, and navigaton controls. etc. > >--------------3B33F6C5E47002654DEAEF17-- > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 18:46:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32601 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:46:26 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32578 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:46:25 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6DE4C76F5; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:47:31 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:51:57 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002232009.MAA31521@ns1.filetron.com> In-Reply-To: <200002232009.MAA31521@ns1.filetron.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022317473101.03437@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: > I'm reading this as a right to redecorate your room given license but I cannot reverse engineer the lock on the door in the event I don't have your key. That's understandable, except for one flaw. I bought the house that contains that room, the contents of which are still yours. Well, now looking at it closely, I see the later paragraphs as being more useful to us than (f)(1) I'll go through them all with my interepretations: 1201(f)(1) says that you can do reverse engineering on a copy protected piece of software (I'm leaving aside the debate on if DVD Video is software) in order to make another piece of software work with the protected program or work with the data files of protected program (that last bit is my assumption. Are there any past cases to back that up?). This means that breaking CSS would be legal to get LiViD to be able to play *unencrypted* .vob files, or to make StarOffice read Word .doc files. I don't think this applies to DeCSS at all, except maybe if members of MoRE were on trial for doing the RE to make DeCSS. 1201(f)(2) is more broad though. It says that you can make a technological means (DeCSS) "... for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program [LiViD for example] with other programs [the DVD Video], if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constituete infringement under this title." The challenge to this argument is proving that DVD Video is a program, or that the language of the law should be interepreted to mean propriatary data formats, as well as executable programs. 1201(f)(3) is probably the most critical to the cases at hand. It addresses the issues raised in 1201(a)(2) when related to software interoperation. It says (edited by me for applicable parts), "... the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph ... (2) ... provides such ... 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 ...." This seems to say that if DeCSS falls under paragraph (2) above, it can be freely distributed if it is only to be used so that other programs can make use of the DVD Video. The language "solely for the purpose" may cause problems if the Judge is persuaded by the MPAA to see piracy as a possible purpose. 1201(f)(4) is the clause that defines interoperability, and may help us somewhat in our evaluation of DVD Video as a program. It says, "... the term 'interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been enchanged." I think that if we argue that DVD Video has program content (which I don't think is *too* controversial), then under paragraph (2), circumvention is permitted if it is needed to make another program (such as a MPEG player) use data (the movie) given to it by the program in the .vob file. We can explain this as equivalent to a BASIC (or Perl, or whatever) program interoperating with it's interpreter. Well, that covers 1201(f), with my interpretation thrown right in along the text of the law. I guess I've changed my mind somewhat, from the view that DeCSS would not be covered under this part. paragraph (1) does not apply, but using (3) and (2) and an interpretation of (4), the rest might work. Please make your own interpretations on this, or to use any of it as answers to FAQ questions. Steven Barker, Undergraduate in Math and Computer Science at the University of Illinois Proud Linux user -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu An apple every eight hours will keep three doctors away. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 19:34:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA11162 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:34:07 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA11159 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:34:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 1945 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 00:34:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224003446.1944.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:34:46 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:34:46 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > People keep talking about "primary purpose". As far as I can tell the > only issues are "effective" and with "authority". "Effective" in the > context of 1201 means a golden handshake, not "efficacious". > "Authority" might mean one of two things, but is probably the same > authority in 17 U.S.C. 106. No where do I see "primary purpose". What > am I missing? The MPAA is sueing under 1201(a)(2), which has three sub-paragraphs that ban technology: (A) "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing" (B) "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent" (C) "is marketed ... for use in circumventing" The question of "authority" is part of the definition of circumvention offered in 1201(a)(3)(A). The "effectively controls access" part describes the measures circuvented and is found in each of the three clauses. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 19:43:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA12937 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:43:35 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA12921 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:43:34 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA21832 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:44:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B47EA4.5143B698@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:43:17 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: Color me DOH! References: <200002232314.PAA17433@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: > > > Except that edges on the impossible. From complexity theory, I would argue you would need a program as big as the audio video data that comes from the original camera output itself if it was so sensitive to changes. Are you sure that's not the case only after CSS is performed? I'll try to explain the process - this is a very simple, nontechnical, and probably not very accurate version, but you'll get the idea. For a more complete guide, look up DVD authoring online, there are several tutorials out there. First, you get the master tape, usually a D1. You strip the audio and video out of it separately. You encode each of them digitally. You figure out what you're going to have room for on the disc, which has bearing on how much compression you use, how many languages, etc. If there are a lot of action scenes in the movie, you'll need more room for them than you would for talking heads or still scenery, for example. You create chapter breaks, which are not necessarily determined by an arbitrary length (as in 15 minutes to a chapter) but by where the logical breaks are (between scenes or frames, for example). You wouldn't want to break a chapter in the middle of a car chase or a soulful gaze. You create subpictures, still pictures, various audio tracks, languages, menus, etc. You break the audio up, remix, and synch it to the video. You create navigational controls and commands and loops and jumps and what have you. You remux this together. All of this can be accomplished using various DVD authoring systems and tools. The output is a DVD title image, which is what I'm calling a program. As long as the right files are in the right places with the right names, it meets the DVD Video specs, and it'll play on a DVD Video player. Are you beginning to see the complexity, and why one film's program would never work with another? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 19:43:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA13060 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:43:49 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA13057 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:43:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 21670 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 00:44:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224004427.21669.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:44:27 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:44:27 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ian Hay wrote: > You make some further important points below, but I just wanted to > highlight this last statement. It is perfectly clear that Kaplan > quoted the wrong section. He quoted 1201(f)(1), which applies > 'notwithstanding the provisions of ss. (a)(1)(A); the section he ought > to have quoted was 1201(f)(2). I'm glad somebody else sees this too. > These are worded quite differently: what do we do with a situation > like this, where the Judge clearly erred in his interpretation of the > law, but where the correct interpretation may not necessarily help us? > It may not help us at trial, but it may help in an appeal. What you do is you say "Your honor, you held X because plaintiffs argued Y, but if you look closely you see that their arguement applies only to 1201(f)(1), but not 1201(f)(2), which we seek to apply". If he agrees, you win, if not you appeal. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 19:53:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA15067 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:53:14 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA15063 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:53:13 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 581EC76F5; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:54:19 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Digital Versatile Disc. Not D. Video D. Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:38:36 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002232158.NAA10164@ns1.filetron.com> In-Reply-To: <200002232158.NAA10164@ns1.filetron.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022318541900.03717@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: > There's a problem here. In the discussion earlier it was discovered that when the court reads the acronym DVD it includes the xtras. DVD is digital versatile disc, not digital video disc. No one here is saying that the film recording that is part (**keyword**) of the DVD is software. As defined by the phrase digital versatile disc, the video and audio portions are not the whole but only part of the thing called DVD. CSS on the other hand is one homogenous concept a system used to encrypt. The standard format that CSS is used on though is called DVD Video. They are the .vob files on the DVDs. Some DVDs have nothing else. Most these days are DVD ROMs, with DVD Video and additional material in other formats. CSS is not used on them. My source for this is the DVD FAQ on the DVD Demystified webpage www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html Steve -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu The difference between a career and a job is about 20 hours a week. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 20:01:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA17074 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:01:22 -0500 Received: from dial107.roadrunner.com (dial107.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.107]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA17070 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:01:19 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial107.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA02144 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:04:45 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:04:44 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted Message-ID: <20000223180444.A1645@localhost> References: <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> <200002230425.XAA06999@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002230425.XAA06999@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from Robert S. Thau on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:25:20PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:25:20PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Which is fine as far as it goes --- the Constitution allows Congress > to establish exclusive rights of all kind. But those rights must > extend "for limited times" (article I, section 8). If Title 17 had > language that actually *said*: > > (1) Copyright holders have the exclusive right to control > the time, place and manner in which their works are displayed > or performed. > > (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, the rights > specified in paragraph (1) of this section shall not expire. > > then it would be plainly unconstitutional. But I'm arguing that the > language of 1201 has the same effect --- by allowing copyright holders > to embody their controls in an access control device which never times > out, and criminalizing distribution of any technology which could > defeat that device. > > FWIW, the access control device in the case at hand, CSS, does not > have any provision for expiration dates that I'm aware of (as I've > said before, you need CSS to read a DVD now, and you'll need it a > thousand years from now) --- any access control device which did > provide for expiration dates could be easily defeated by setting the > clock ahead. This access control system must as part of its normal function either: (i) Surrender the decryption keys after a moveable dead-line and provide unhindered access to the encrypted data, or (ii) The access control system must switch to public domain mode and allow any access after the moveable dead-line. Interesting design criteria. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 20:17:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21060 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:17:04 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21057 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:17:03 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA06720 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:17:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B4867D.3516E34A@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:16:45 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD development process, in brief References: <200002232314.PAA17433@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.dvdexperts.com/education.htm From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 20:17:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21121 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:17:23 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21118 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:17:22 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9BDEB76F5; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:18:28 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:02:36 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000223154423.8269.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> <38B45B6A.51F4904F@cdpage.com> <38B463C5.69086D18@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <38B463C5.69086D18@sympatico.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022319182801.03717@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Ian Hay wrote: > IANAEE (I am not an engineer either). As Rob has pointed out, the fact > that -a program- makes use of the CSS info on the DVD does not by itself > make CSS a program. As to your second point, DeCSS does not attempt to > interface with the program that does the decrypting, it attempts to > -mimic- the program that does the decrypting. **This only underlines the > completely uncontroversial observation that DeCSS is a program - we need > to establish a second "program" at the other end (i.e. either within the > DVD data or in CSS itself.)** I want to comment on what you say at the end of the paragraph here (marked with **). I think a lot of us have been missing the fact that in 1201(f), DeCSS is not the program doing the "interoperating". It is the "means" that is used to circumvent the copy protection, to allow interaction between a MPEG player and the DVD Video content. I think we could get in trouble in court if we arn't careful in argue correctly what is the "independantly created computer program". > What remains to be seen is whether either the DVD data or CSS can be > seen as an -incomplete set of instructions- that are superimposed upon a > program to fulfill the task of a program. (word overuse alert.) I think > the key is determining whether either the DVD data or the CSS system > embody -instructions- rather than simply static data. If either can be > established, then I think we still have a shot under 1201(f)(2). Read the DVD FAQ from www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.17 where it describes how interactive features on DVD Video work. There is a command set that can do a lot of things. There are 24 system registers (memory?) that can store information, comands to do math and comparison, flow control etc. Sounds like a fairly capable programing language. (ok, as a CS major, I'm sure it's a pretty weak language, but seems to have pretty good functionality) Of course, for court presentation, that FAQ would not be much good, but I'm sure there are specifications online somewhere... Anyway, that might be enough to establish DVD Video as a program. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Why not go out on a limb? Isn't that where the fruit is? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 21:06:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA01909 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:06:20 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA01906 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:06:19 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA28202 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:07:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B49202.6BB62330@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:05:55 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... References: <20000223154423.8269.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> <38B45B6A.51F4904F@cdpage.com> <38B463C5.69086D18@sympatico.ca> <00022319182801.03717@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steven Barker wrote: > Read the DVD FAQ from www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.17 where it > describes how interactive features on DVD Video work. There is a command set > that can do a lot of things. There are 24 system registers (memory?) that can > store information, comands to do math and comparison, flow control etc. Sounds > like a fairly capable programing language. (ok, as a CS major, I'm sure > it's a pretty weak language, but seems to have pretty good functionality) Of > course, for court presentation, that FAQ would not be much good, but I'm sure > there are specifications online somewhere... But you could always call Jim Taylor as a witness. ;-) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 21:07:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA02370 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:07:46 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA02288 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:07:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 15005 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 02:08:25 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224020825.15004.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:08:25 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:08:25 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Steven Barker wrote: > I'm not sure we're even approaching this part of the law correctly. > I may be the devil's advocate, but here's my interpretation (IANAL). > 1201(f) seems to allow circumvention of the encryption in order to > learn how to make programs interact, but it does not extend to > allowing other programs to continue to circumvent the encryption. So > even if we say that DeCSS allows LiViD to interoperate with DVD ROM > files, that is not what is covered in the exception. > 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of software protected by > encryption, not reverse engineering of the encryption itself. I agree with your statements if you modify them to apply to 1201(f)(1) and not 1201(f)(2) or all of 1201(f). This is essentially what the MPAA and judge both said. I content that they have focussed only on the 'access to a particular portion of that program' language which is contained ONLY in 1201(f)(1) and not the second half of the 'OR' in 1201(f)(2), which does not reference 1201(f)(1). It only requires that the circumvention be for the 'purpose of enabling interoperability'. It simply does not contain any language that continues 1201(f)(1)'s context of 'access to ... program' or forbid ongoing circumvention The only requirement is that you not infringe, so you must have licenced what the tool accesses. I've said what I think the interoperating programs are. 1201(f)(4) defines this, so let's focus on it more: "1201(f)(4)For purposes of this subsection, the term 'interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. " This is clearly talking about sharing data files and data packets. Will anyone argue that the *.vob files do not 'exchange information' between the encryption program and the decryption program? After a little more review of the law, it's actually 1201(f)(3) that dismisses the case. This part allows the technology created under (f)(2) to be distributed as long as it doesn't violate other laws besides 1201. Since DeCSS is GPL, the defendants may distribute it if it was created in accordance with (f)(2), which it was since it circumvents only to exchange data in the .vob files. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 21:41:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA10812 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:41:15 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA10808 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:41:14 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.17) with ESMTP id VAA25138 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:41:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id VAA12257; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:41:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:41:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002240241.VAA12257@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-announce] Outline for DMCA case brief posted In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000223094258.00af9ac0@law.harvard.edu> References: <4.2.2.20000221154352.00ac2770@law.harvard.edu> <20000221172043.4527.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <200002212009.PAA28852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <200002230425.XAA06999@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <4.2.2.20000223094258.00af9ac0@law.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wendy Seltzer writes: > At 11:25 PM 2/22/00 -0500, rst@ai.mit.edu wrote: > Thanks for spelling it out. When made in its full detail, the argument > goes beyond the "as applied" argument I was seeing. Let's see if I can get > it right this time. Well, it's certainly taking *me* long enough... > If I read it correctly, you're arguing that Congress can't empower others > to make "laws" (with access controls backed up by law) that Congress > doesn't have the power to make directly. CSS is then a law of perpetual > copyright with no fair use exception, invalid on its face even before the > copyright term expires. Actually, that's not *quite* the argument that I was trying to make, but it may be a distinction without a difference. I'm arguing that in chapter 12, Congress has (without actually saying so, in so many words) effectively given copyright holders the novel right to determine the time, place, and manner of even *private* performances and displays of their recorded work: *) Section 1201 secures this right by effectively prohibiting any display or performance against their wishes (as embodied in the access control devices that they choose to employ). *) Sections 1203 and 1204 specify penalties for infringement of this right (by circumventing the access control devices) at least as severe as the ones given elsewhere (Title 18, ch. 113, sec. 2319) for infringement of the rights actually spelled out in Title 17, chapter 1. *) ... but nothing in the chapter says that this right shall have any finite duration --- and in fact, the access control devices we've already seen will impose their restrictions indefinitely. In other words, I'm arguing that even though chapter 12 doesn't explicitly contain anything like my copyright language from hell: > > (1) Copyright holders have the exclusive right to control > > the time, place and manner in which their works are displayed > > or performed. > > > > (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, the rights > > specified in paragraph (1) of this section shall not expire. ... the prohibitions of 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) are stringent enough and severe enough that they have the same effect in the real world, and ought to be subjected to the same constitutional test. > It does sound like a Lessig-style argument: that the fact of regulation is > more important than the mechanism of regulation. What's prohibited for one > means of regulation shouldn't be permitted for another. The courts often > don't recognize the similarity, and permit indirect regulation where direct > legislation would be impermissible, but I'll dig for the cites where the > argument is made, to see how we can use them. Glad to hear it. Thanks. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 21:46:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA12104 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:46:08 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA12101 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:46:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 26657 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 02:46:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224024647.26656.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:46:47 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:46:47 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > If you read carefully what I wrote, you'll notice that I'm not saying > that CSS wasn't implemented by a program. [...] OK, finally we're getting somewhere. I am asserting that it was. I will be VERY surprised if somebody built a non-computing device to do this. I do not know what to call this program. Please give me a name to call it, so we can communicate about it. I attempted to describe, if not name, it by 'CSS encryption program' since the program encrypts data using the CSS method. I agree this is not the same entity as 'CSS'. > [...] I'm saying that CSS > *itself* is not a program, and that the software used to put CSS into > place on a DVD disk is not itself stored on the disk and has nothing > to do with this. Good. Step forward #2. I contend that even though 'the software used to put CSS into place on a DVD disk' is not provided to the consumer that it does 'exchange information' with the consumer's player in the form of .vob data files. These data files are licenced to the consumer, so 'fair use' applies once we can get by the nasty provisions of 1201(a)(2). In other words, we have a place to stay in the castle if we can just get over the moat without getting eaten by the 'gators. > No, the whole purpose of this forum is to brainstorm lines of attack > and then subject them to the harshest criticism. That's what open > source methodology is all about. OK fine. <> OK fine. You got the last word in. > Are you stating that DeCSS enables interoperability with the DVD disc > press at the factory? Is that what you're saying? Perhaps I've > misread your posts. The exchange of information between the CSS encryption program and the player decryption program might happen to go through a very complicated process filled with many non-programmed steps: printing press, packaging, trucking, retail outlet, etc... These are just gears in the social machinary that helps exchange the information between the two programs. I see nothing in the language of (f)(4) that indicates the programs have to be resident on the same system. You and I are exchanging informatation are we not? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 23:00:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA30379 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:00:27 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA30376 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:00:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 691 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 03:56:28 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 03:56:28 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA07088; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:01:03 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:01:03 -0800 Message-Id: <200002240401.UAA07088@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > >--- Ian Hay wrote: >> You make some further important points below, but I just wanted to >> highlight this last statement. It is perfectly clear that Kaplan >> quoted the wrong section. He quoted 1201(f)(1), which applies >> 'notwithstanding the provisions of ss. (a)(1)(A); the section he >ought >> to have quoted was 1201(f)(2). > >I'm glad somebody else sees this too. > >> These are worded quite differently: what do we do with a situation >> like this, where the Judge clearly erred in his interpretation of the > >> law, but where the correct interpretation may not necessarily help >us? >> It may not help us at trial, but it may help in an appeal. > >What you do is you say "Your honor, you held X because plaintiffs >argued Y, but if you look closely you see that their arguement applies >only to 1201(f)(1), but not 1201(f)(2), which we seek to apply". If he >agrees, you win, if not you appeal. It would definitely be a good start. The way to get an appeal on a roll (you get first dibs because you are appealing) is to show inconsistencies in the original trial. That would do it. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 23:05:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA31658 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:05:46 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA31583 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:05:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 1263 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 04:01:48 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 04:01:48 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA07586; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:06:24 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:06:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200002240406.UAA07586@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Color me DOH! Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >Rares Marian wrote: > >> >> >> Except that edges on the impossible. From complexity theory, I would argue you would need a program as big as the audio video data that comes from the original camera output itself if it was so sensitive to changes. Are you sure that's not the case only after CSS is performed? > >I'll try to explain the process - this is a very simple, nontechnical, and probably not very accurate version, but you'll get the idea. For a more complete guide, look up DVD authoring online, there are several tutorials out there. > >First, you get the master tape, usually a D1. You strip the audio and video out of it separately. You encode each of them digitally. You figure out what you're going to have room for on the disc, which has bearing on how much compression you use, how many languages, etc. If there are a lot of action scenes in the movie, you'll need more room for them >than you would for talking heads or still scenery, for example. You create chapter breaks, which are not necessarily determined by an arbitrary length (as in 15 minutes to a chapter) but by where the logical breaks are (between scenes or frames, for example). You wouldn't want to break a chapter in the middle of a car chase or a soulful gaze. You create >subpictures, still pictures, various audio tracks, languages, menus, etc. You break the audio up, remix, and synch it to the video. You create navigational controls and commands and loops and jumps and what have you. You remux this together. All of this can be accomplished using various DVD authoring systems and tools. The output is a DVD title image, >which is what I'm calling a program. As long as the right files are in the right places with the right names, it meets the DVD Video specs, and it'll play on a DVD Video player. > >Are you beginning to see the complexity, and why one film's program would never work with another? That is bizarre. These people have been watching too many Bond movies. Or seen Linux filesystems. (Love the OS, it's just less than streamlined.) Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 23:34:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA07900 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:34:59 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA07897 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:34:57 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA02397 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:35:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B4B4E0.BE4E3A0E@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:34:40 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Color me DOH! References: <200002240406.UAA07586@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: > That is bizarre. These people have been watching too many Bond movies. Or seen Linux filesystems. (Love the OS, it's just less than streamlined.) Not at all bizarre. It's how you take content from an antiquated, analog, linear medium (film) and place it into a digital, interactive, multilayered, multipurpose, customizable, and randomly-accessible medium, thereby creating the possibility for a whole new art form. Movies are some of the most boring, predictable, old-fashioned things you can do with DVD, even with all the bells and whistles and extras added in. Don't get me started. Granted, they could have made it easier. But it wouldn't be as rich in potential. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 23:35:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA08055 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:35:31 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA08052 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:35:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 3600 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 04:31:32 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 04:31:32 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA09134; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:36:08 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:36:08 -0800 Message-Id: <200002240436.UAA09134@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steven Barker wrote: >On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: >> I'm reading this as a right to redecorate your room given license but I cannot reverse engineer the lock on the door in the event I don't have your key. That's understandable, except for one flaw. I bought the house that contains that room, the contents of which are still yours. > >Well, now looking at it closely, I see the later paragraphs as being more >useful to us than (f)(1) I'll go through them all with my interepretations: > >1201(f)(1) says that you can do reverse engineering on a copy protected >piece of software (I'm leaving aside the debate on if DVD Video is software) 'Tis, thanks Dana. >in order to make another piece of software work with the protected program or work >with the data files of protected program (that last bit is my assumption. Are >there any past cases to back that up?). This means that breaking CSS would be >legal to get LiViD to be able to play *unencrypted* .vob files, or to make >StarOffice read Word .doc files. I don't think this applies to DeCSS at all, >except maybe if members of MoRE were on trial for doing the RE to make DeCSS. >1201(f)(2) is more broad though. It says that you can make a technological >means (DeCSS) "... for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an >independently created computer program [LiViD for example] with other programs >[the DVD Video], if such means are necessary to achieve such >interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constituete infringement >under this title." The challenge to this argument is proving that DVD Video is >a program, or that the language of the law should be interepreted to mean >propriatary data formats, as well as executable programs. Data formats are a language spec(and I would extend this as far as DNA being a language spec). Natural common sense says you cannot copyright German. Or Afrikaans for that matter. The written law is a whole different ballgame? Comments? >1201(f)(3) is probably the most critical to the cases at hand. It addresses >the issues raised in 1201(a)(2) when related to software interoperation. >It says (edited by me for applicable parts), "... the means permitted under >paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in >paragraph ... (2) ... provides such ... 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 ...." This seems to say that if DeCSS falls under paragraph >(2) above, it can be freely distributed if it is only to be used so that other >programs can make use of the DVD Video. The language "solely for the purpose" >may cause problems if the Judge is persuaded by the MPAA to see piracy as a >possible purpose. Possibility and act are not equal. Anyone got a list of 1001 uses for DeCSS including interoperability? Now things get interesting. If we can argue that giving someone DeCSS is not different from giving them a homemade VCR in the context of VHS (or Beta) then I think we can kick some corp butt. Just don't demonstrate.

What do we do if they demonstrate?

>1201(f)(4) is the clause that defines interoperability, and may help us >somewhat in our evaluation of DVD Video as a program. It says, "... the term >'interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange >information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has >been enchanged." I think that if we argue that DVD Video has program content >(which I don't think is *too* controversial), then under paragraph (2), >circumvention is permitted if it is needed to make another program (such as a >MPEG player) use data (the movie) given to it by the program in the .vob file. >We can explain this as equivalent to a BASIC (or Perl, or whatever) program >interoperating with it's interpreter. Not needed. The process Dana described to me makes it clearly software. >Well, that covers 1201(f), with my interpretation thrown right in along the >text of the law. I guess I've changed my mind somewhat, from the view that >DeCSS would not be covered under this part. paragraph (1) does not apply, but >using (3) and (2) and an interpretation of (4), the rest might work. > >Please make your own interpretations on this, or to use any of it as answers >to FAQ questions. Looks good. Now we need an attack against misinterpretations of a possible demonstration. Rob, Dana, anybody got ideas? Can you say FAQ Part II? >Steven Barker, >Undergraduate in Math and Computer Science at the University of Illinois >Proud Linux user > Steven Barker > scbarker@uiuc.edu >An apple every eight hours will keep three doctors away. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 23 23:49:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA10494 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:49:06 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA10491 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:49:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 4834 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 04:45:05 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 04:45:05 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA09802; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:49:41 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:49:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200002240449.UAA09802@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ian Hay wrote: >Dana Parker wrote: >> >> Ian Hay wrote: >> >> > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> > >> > > As Dana pointed out, the interactive nature of DVD media could technically >> > > constitute a "program", even while "CSS" (as a scrambling method) does >> > > not. Is this the "other program" you believe the independently created >> > > computer program enables interoperability with? >> > >> > As I pointed out in another post, both approaches (DVD media as >> > "program, and CSS as "program") may be valid: I'm not sure why you >> > choose the former over the latter as more plausible (from a legal >> > standpoint: Dana has effectively demonstrated that it is plausible from >> > a technical standpoint). I still hold the view that a court would be >> > more comfortable in finding that CSS as a device/method is more >> > consistent with the idea of a "computer program". >> > >> > Either way, nothing prevents us from arguing -both-. > >> Forgive me if this is inane, IANAE (I am not an engineer). CSS is BOTH a >> scrambling and unscrambling system. The program that adds CSS to a given title >> may not enter in to the question, but the program that descrambles it lives in >> every DVD player as a set of instructions that tells the hardware what to do >> with the keys to unlock the disc. Doesn't it? > >IANAEE (I am not an engineer either). As Rob has pointed out, the fact >that -a program- makes use of the CSS info on the DVD does not by itself >make CSS a program. As to your second point, DeCSS does not attempt to >interface with the program that does the decrypting, it attempts to >-mimic- the program that does the decrypting. This only underlines the >completely uncontroversial observation that DeCSS is a program - we need >to establish a second "program" at the other end (i.e. either within the >DVD data or in CSS itself.) > >What remains to be seen is whether either the DVD data or CSS can be >seen as an -incomplete set of instructions- that are superimposed upon a >program to fulfill the task of a program. (word overuse alert.) I think >the key is determining whether either the DVD data or the CSS system >embody -instructions- rather than simply static data. If either can be >established, then I think we still have a shot under 1201(f)(2). Dana managed to convince me. What I gather is that they arranged it in such a way that it is impossible to make a DVD w/o doing the kind of work it takes to put a Linux distro together. Even if you didn't want any gimmicks. >I. >-- > ____ >| | Ian R. Hay >|____| Toronto, Canada ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 00:19:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA18332 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:19:41 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA18311 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:19:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 7354 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 05:15:41 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 05:15:41 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA11556; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:20:17 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:20:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200002240520.VAA11556@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Color me DOH! Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >Rares Marian wrote: > >> That is bizarre. These people have been watching too many Bond movies. Or seen Linux filesystems. (Love the OS, it's just less than streamlined.) > >Not at all bizarre. It's how you take content from an antiquated, analog, linear medium (film) and place it into a digital, interactive, multilayered, multipurpose, customizable, and randomly-accessible medium, thereby creating the possibility for a whole new art form. We already have Muds. And no they're not all swords and space ships. :) I do think you just proved one of my pet theories. 1. Hollywood destroyed Jim Henson's dream of an adult (as in Kafka or Joyce not Hustler) themed art form with puppets used to distract audiences from immediately identifying with the characters until the characters performed some sort of defining act. They turned it into a kid's genre. 2. Since Hollywood made puppetry a children's genre they have been trying to approach his art form but are avoiding the term game. Could be their undoing in other ways since clearly they're stalling. Where they want to go, computer gamers have there for 10+ years. They like a lot of big names the past couple of years are leaving an open field for the taking. >Movies are some of the most boring, predictable, old-fashioned things you can do with >DVD, even with all the bells and whistles and extras added in. > >Don't get me started. Okay. :) > >Granted, they could have made it easier. But it wouldn't be as rich in potential. Much easier :) I can't wait for the opportunity to outdo them. FMD-ROM plus 360 deg video cams I just need to write a good Mud and invest in the right tech. Heh. > > Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 00:23:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA19651 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:23:37 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA19532 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:23:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 24657 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 05:24:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224052414.24656.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:24:14 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:24:14 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Rares Marian wrote: > Steven Barker wrote: > >On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > >> > >> Given that I only need to identify one pair of interoperating > >> programs, I could also claim that the .vob files themselves are > >> programs, since they contain instructions in the mpeg2 syntax > > What MPEG systax? It's a compression output unless you want to say a > tar.gz of a Edgar Alan Poe poem is a program. Ther program is the > one that does all the work. What do you think compression is - it's coded instructions on how to produce the output file. > Rob, where's that Turing Completeness Turing completeness is a property of languages, not programs. All instructions are translated into assembly before they are executed. Assembly is turing complete, (proof left to reader). Therefore all instruction sets that run on a computer would meet the definition of a program based on this. I have never seen anybody outside of this list tack 'Turing Completeness' into a definition of a program. I think the definition that I've seen the most is something like: 'A program is a collection of commands and data that produce predicatble results when executed on a computer'. I much prefer the object oriented philosophy: 'Everything is an object'. Objects have methods and state. Programs are objects, a methods is an objects, state is an object. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 00:34:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA22353 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:34:57 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA22297 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:34:56 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA02864 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:34:11 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:34:11 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD Media *is* program. Message-ID: <20000224003411.C28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Okay, I'm looking at section 3.7 of the DVD faq at http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.7 and I can state this: 1) The command set supported by the DVD player for audio/visual content is 100% bona-fide Turing Complete. It satisfies our (techies) "minimal set of requirements for a program." Absolutely. 2) Further, the command set appears as complete as, if not more so, than the CPU of the first computer I ever owned (which was an Atari 800, which had the 6802/6811 processor - the same processor as the Commodore 64, which was more common, even the same processor as the Commodore 64's floopy drive ;). Excerpts from the FAQ describing features: "... up to 36 higlightable, rectangular "buttons" ..." "... four arrow keys for selecting onscreen buttons, plus numeric keys, select key, menu key, and return key ..." "Additional features of the command set include simple math (add, subtract, multiply, divide, modulo, random), bitwise and, bitwise or, bitwise xor, plus comparisons (equal, greater than, etc.), and register loading, moving and swapping. There are 24 system registers for information such as language code, audio and subpicture settings, and parental level. There are 16 general registers for command use. A countdown timer is also provided. Commands can branch or jump to other commands. Commands can also control player settings, jump to different parts of the disk, and control presentation of audio, video, subpicture, camera angles, etc." Gentlemen (said for effect and not to be sexist), what we have here is a programming language which I can *literally* and *trivially* write a program to balance my checkbook in. The only severe limitation is that there is 16 registers and no memory access, but: a) That's more than enough to write certain kinds of programs (balance checkbook example, calculator, laserdisk-like games, make up random credit card numbers which pass MOD-10 checksum, implement Blowfish encryption algorithm, implement MD5 hash algorithm (maybe?), b) Turing Completeness only requires three registers, one for state and two counters, the ability to load and store the state, and the ability to branch. (Well, this is what it would require in this context.) Remember those old laserdisk video games with Dirk the Daring and Space Ace where at each plot-pivot point you were given a few choices. Can do it here, and much more. Those are programs and the most direct equivalent to the DVD audio/visual stream. *bows* Thank you, thank you. Thank you all. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 00:52:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA25355 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:52:29 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA25351 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:52:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 17670 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 05:53:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224055307.17669.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:53:07 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:53:07 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Programs sharing information To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Is anyone prepared to argue that the encrypted content burned onto the DVD's during manufacturing was NOT created by a 'program'? I think the interoperability needed by (f)(2) is pretty simple unless someone can argue the above. The encrypted content is originally created by a program. A manufacturing, packaging, distribution, and retail system deliver the information hidden in the encrypted files to the consumer, who with the help of his DVD device and operating system delivers it to the playback program. This is a complicated transfer of information from one program to another, but a transfer none the less. By this miracle of modern society the encrypting program and the decrypting program share information and thus interoperate. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 01:29:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA00487 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:29:18 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA00484 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:29:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 12962 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 06:25:20 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 06:25:20 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA15692; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:29:56 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:29:56 -0800 Message-Id: <200002240629.WAA15692@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: >Is anyone prepared to argue that the encrypted content burned onto the >DVD's during manufacturing was NOT created by a 'program'? see my discussion w/ Dana. Case closed. DVD is a prrogram it is not in fact a recording any more. Think of a Mud. Is a mud a program? Yes. Then guess what! So is a DVD. >I think the interoperability needed by (f)(2) is pretty simple unless >someone can argue the above. > >The encrypted content is originally created by a program. A >manufacturing, packaging, distribution, and retail system deliver the >information hidden in the encrypted files to the consumer, who with the >help of his DVD device and operating system delivers it to the playback >program. This is a complicated transfer of information from one program >to another, but a transfer none the less. > >By this miracle of modern society the encrypting program and the >decrypting program share information and thus interoperate. Rares ______________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 01:36:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA01652 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:36:04 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA01611 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:36:02 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15259 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:47:07 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:47:06 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000223224706.F14206@duskglow.com> References: <200002240629.WAA15692@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200002240629.WAA15692@ns1.filetron.com>; from rmarian@linuxstart.com on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 10:29:56PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Even if DVD is a program (which I think we've proved reasonably conclusively that it is), I'm a little hesitant to think that this could sway anything. Isn't the DVD CONTENT what is being protected, and isn't that arguably the intent of the law? This strikes me as a technicality and somewhat weak. Not that I don't think it's a great argument. It is. I just don't think the judge will buy it. I think it's very possible he could say "yes, that's what the law says, but this is the intent of the law, so..." Or maybe I'm just cynical. It needs to be brought up, though. This isn't something to base a case on, IMO. But, then again, IANAL, IAJASPUA (I am just a stupid programmer/unix admin) --Russell On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 10:29:56PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Bryan Taylor wrote: > >Is anyone prepared to argue that the encrypted content burned onto the > >DVD's during manufacturing was NOT created by a 'program'? > > see my discussion w/ Dana. Case closed. DVD is a prrogram it is not in fact a recording any more. Think of a Mud. Is a mud a program? Yes. Then guess what! So is a DVD. > > >I think the interoperability needed by (f)(2) is pretty simple unless > >someone can argue the above. > > > >The encrypted content is originally created by a program. A > >manufacturing, packaging, distribution, and retail system deliver the > >information hidden in the encrypted files to the consumer, who with the > >help of his DVD device and operating system delivers it to the playback > >program. This is a complicated transfer of information from one program > >to another, but a transfer none the less. > > > >By this miracle of modern society the encrypting program and the > >decrypting program share information and thus interoperate. > > Rares > ______________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > >http://im.yahoo.com > > ---------------------- > Do you do Linux? :) > Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 03:35:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA26437 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 03:35:55 -0500 Received: from mercury.is.co.za (mercury.is.co.za [196.4.160.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA26393 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 03:35:48 -0500 Received: from hermwas.is.co.za (hermwas.is.co.za [196.23.0.8]) by mercury.is.co.za (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17689 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:36:25 +0200 Received: (from hentis@localhost) by hermwas.is.co.za (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24687 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:36:19 +0200 (SAT) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:36:19 +0200 From: Henti Smith To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The CSS (encryption) program Message-ID: <20000224103619.A24587@is.co.za> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: SunOS 5.6 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hmmm .. would it be possble to add the CCS but add support for PGP Keys. I'm sure there are people out there that would love haveing that :))) that way you can encrypt for a particular person *grin* Henti On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:58:38AM +0100, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > > This just occurred to me: > > It is possible to write a opensource CSS encryptor, as > a standalon program, say for allowing small studios to > 'protect' their movies. > Such a program is not in danger of violating the anti- > circumvention portions of DMCA, as clearly it does > _not_ facilitate circumvention, quite to the contrary. > ( I'd like to see MPAA try and stop this in court ) > > Secondly it will then have been established that CSS > encryptor is a program, and the interoperability issue > can then be established, except for the fact that NO > reverse engeneering will be needed. > > If a stand alone CSS encryptor would acomplish anything > in court, I'd be willing to write it. Even if it doesn't > accomplish anything legaly, it would greatly enhance the > reddening of the MPAAs faces. > > frank > > This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely > be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. > There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) > I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 04:32:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA04547 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:32:19 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA04544 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:32:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id LAA26843 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:32:56 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:32:56 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA In-Reply-To: <20000223104122.B22706@linuxpower.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> The best counter argument relies on Turing completeness - only true >> programming languages posses this property. LISP, prolog, occam and all the >> datalog languages do, so eventhough they are highly unconventional, they >> cannot be used as counter examples. > >I had to go back and look up "Turing completeness". It's been awhile. But >couldn't this, in theory, also help to draw the line between what constitutes >a "program" and what does not? It seems to me that Turing completeness would >effectively decide whether something qualifies as a "program", and therefore >qualifies under the reverse engineering exemption to 1201. It does. If a language is Turing complete (i.e. theoretically its computing power is equivalent to a Turing machine or in other words the language, in the absence of time and memory limitations, capable of recognizing any context sensitive grammar), it qualifies as a program. This definition shunts out HTML and other data representation languages and file formats. The macro facility of microsoft word might qualify. Actually, if your language has the usual arithmetic, conditional jumps and a way to access r/w storage, it will most likely pass. Does the scripting part in DVDs have this much? Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 04:47:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA06813 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:47:29 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA06810 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:47:27 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id LAA29100 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:48:07 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:48:06 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Ignore earlier post fat fingersRe: [dvd-discuss] 1) DeCSS Out of Scope Debate In-Reply-To: <200002231615.IAA30424@ns1.filetron.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: >Trafficking the device cannot be illegal. It's very legal to sell info on >how to build a descrambler, it's very legal to make devices that >descramble. It is legal to sell those devices. It is not legal to make >use of them against copyrighted content. I think this is false. Notice the difference between 17USC1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(a)(2)(A) and 1201(b)(1)(A). The last two talk about just such a thing and the first one which concerns the circumvention itself isn't even effective yet. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 04:54:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA07865 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:54:47 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA07862 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:54:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id LAA00365 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:55:25 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:55:25 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... In-Reply-To: <20000223111636.C22706@linuxpower.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >"(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 identification and >analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling >interoperability of an independently created computer program with >other programs, [...] But 1201(f)(4): For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. It can be argued that you cannot interoperate with the 'program' on DVD because this clause aims at interchange of data and DVD Video's do not engage in such an activity. They *are* the data. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 06:06:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA21104 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:06:16 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA21101 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:06:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id NAA13301 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:06:53 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:06:53 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA In-Reply-To: <38B46048.4582F47B@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Ian Hay wrote: >In the Canadian context, "or indirectly" might allow the necessarily >incomplete aspects of CSS protection/encoding and/or the executable >elements of the DVD media itself to be brought into the definition. That is quite promising. The problem is, any such statute is not likely to be based on science but on intuition. It's easily seen that any statute defining programs like that will need to be heavily interpreted - in this case a 'commonly accepted' definition based on the theory of computation can be justified as a clarification. >Anyone have a clue if "computer program" has actually been judicially >defined in copyright or other legislation or caselaw? I just think it >ought to be determined definitively before we start making up our own >definitions based on Turing Completeness. I think one place to start looking for this are the early cases over the patenting of algorithms. I remember reading at least one summary judgment a couple of years back which went extensively into the differences between algorithms, programs, data, processes and so forth. I thought it rather well demonstrated the problems arising from arcane patent legistlation in the information age. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 06:45:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA26119 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:45:02 -0500 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (ssyreeni@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA26116 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:45:00 -0500 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id NAA19371 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:45:40 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:45:39 +0200 (EET) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA In-Reply-To: <20000224024647.26656.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: >OK, finally we're getting somewhere. I am asserting that it was. I will >be VERY surprised if somebody built a non-computing device to do this. I think the normal high performance implementation of a cipher would use ASICs. That they implement algorithms does not necessarily mean that the algorithm will be a program in the sense required here. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 09:49:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA30619 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:49:54 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA30616 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:49:52 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03553 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:48:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:48:55 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Message-ID: <20000224094850.E28173@nacs.net> References: <20000223111636.C22706@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:55:25AM +0200, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > >"(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 identification and > >analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling > >interoperability of an independently created computer program with > >other programs, [...] > > But 1201(f)(4): > > For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the > ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such > programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. > > > It can be argued that you cannot interoperate with the 'program' on DVD > because this clause aims at interchange of data and DVD Video's do not > engage in such an activity. They *are* the data. Blah. Programs are a subset of data, of course they are data. But we could argue that it is also a program, and the judge cares no further. If he did, we'd have to explain how, since programs are sufficiently complex, we tend to anthropomorphize (is that right?) them and say that programs *do* things, when they really don't - CPUs do. I don't think that's a point. > > Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 09:52:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA31318 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:52:39 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA31315 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:52:37 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03585 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:51:47 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:51:47 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Public domain region 1 DVDs? Message-ID: <20000224095142.F28173@nacs.net> References: <20000222212558.10538.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> <20000223083210.B871@localhost> <20000223114133.A8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223115433.B8023@thud.reric.net> <20000223132150.X28173@nacs.net> <20000223135245.B23044@linuxpower.org> <20000223144032.Y28173@nacs.net> <20000223152926.F23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223152926.F23265@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 03:29:26PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > Bah, I just read over that, and I highly doubt that you would find a DVD > > circa 1917.... I'm on my way out the door - you fix it ;) > > For that matter, what exactly is "pubic domain content"? I wasn't aware that > there were any CSS-protected porn DVD's out there. :) Ha! I kill me. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 10:09:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02456 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:09:16 -0500 Received: from dial233.roadrunner.com (dial233.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.233]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02453 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:09:13 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial233.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA00650 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:12:45 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:12:44 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000224081244.A570@localhost> References: <200002240629.WAA15692@ns1.filetron.com> <20000223224706.F14206@duskglow.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223224706.F14206@duskglow.com>; from Russell Miller on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 10:47:06PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 10:47:06PM -0800, Russell Miller wrote: > Even if DVD is a program (which I think we've proved reasonably conclusively > that it is), I'm a little hesitant to think that this could sway anything. > > Isn't the DVD CONTENT what is being protected, and isn't that arguably the > intent of the law? This strikes me as a technicality and somewhat weak. > > Not that I don't think it's a great argument. It is. I just don't think the > judge will buy it. I think it's very possible he could say "yes, that's what > the law says, but this is the intent of the law, so..." What do you think of giving him a DVD that can balance his check book? This does not even have to be an end point. I could be used to show a principle, with examples more along the lines of a "movie" later. I realize that several people are leary of making demonstrations in the court room, but keep in mind that the MPAA is likely do so themselves. The defense should be prepared to make demonstrations suited to their case as a response (at least, if not pro-actively). Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 10:13:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA03060 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:13:25 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA03057 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:13:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 8780 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 15:09:24 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 15:09:24 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA18601; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:13:59 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:13:59 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241513.HAA18601@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Russell Miller wrote: >Even if DVD is a program (which I think we've proved reasonably conclusively >that it is), I'm a little hesitant to think that this could sway anything. > >Isn't the DVD CONTENT what is being protected, and isn't that arguably the >intent of the law? This strikes me as a technicality and somewhat weak. > >Not that I don't think it's a great argument. It is. I just don't think the >judge will buy it. You forget one thing. The whole thing is content. It's a completely different ballgame. He needs to understand that DVD is not a movie system. It's an interactive platform. It's in fact very close to a console system. >I think it's very possible he could say "yes, that's what >the law says, but this is the intent of the law, so..." > >Or maybe I'm just cynical. It needs to be brought up, though. This isn't >something to base a case on, IMO. Guys, feel free to burst my bubble on this one. If you have anyway of doing so. >But, then again, IANAL, IAJASPUA (I am just a stupid programmer/unix admin) Likewise :) >--Russell Rares > >On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 10:29:56PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> Bryan Taylor wrote: >> >Is anyone prepared to argue that the encrypted content burned onto the >> >DVD's during manufacturing was NOT created by a 'program'? >> >> see my discussion w/ Dana. Case closed. DVD is a prrogram it is not in fact a recording any more. Think of a Mud. Is a mud a program? Yes. Then guess what! So is a DVD. >> >> >I think the interoperability needed by (f)(2) is pretty simple unless >> >someone can argue the above. >> > >> >The encrypted content is originally created by a program. A >> >manufacturing, packaging, distribution, and retail system deliver the >> >information hidden in the encrypted files to the consumer, who with the >> >help of his DVD device and operating system delivers it to the playback >> >program. This is a complicated transfer of information from one program >> >to another, but a transfer none the less. >> > >> >By this miracle of modern society the encrypting program and the >> >decrypting program share information and thus interoperate. >> >> Rares >> ______________________________________________ >> >Do You Yahoo!? >> >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >> >http://im.yahoo.com >> >> ---------------------- >> Do you do Linux? :) >> Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com > >-- >Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent >the views of any of my clients. > >http://www.duskglow.com >http://www.singlegeek.com >http://www.whathaveyoudone.org > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 10:21:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA05289 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:21:17 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA05235 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:21:11 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.226.11]) by tomts3-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000224151859.TAQK3031.tomts3-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:18:59 -0500 Message-ID: <38B54D13.1E6F1E54@sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:24:03 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... References: <200002240401.UAA07088@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: > > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > >--- Ian Hay wrote: > >> You make some further important points below, but I just wanted to > >> highlight this last statement. It is perfectly clear that Kaplan > >> quoted the wrong section. He quoted 1201(f)(1), which applies > >> 'notwithstanding the provisions of ss. (a)(1)(A); the section he > >ought > >> to have quoted was 1201(f)(2). > > > >I'm glad somebody else sees this too. > > > >> These are worded quite differently: what do we do with a situation > >> like this, where the Judge clearly erred in his interpretation of the > > > >> law, but where the correct interpretation may not necessarily help > >us? > >> It may not help us at trial, but it may help in an appeal. > > > >What you do is you say "Your honor, you held X because plaintiffs > >argued Y, but if you look closely you see that their arguement applies > >only to 1201(f)(1), but not 1201(f)(2), which we seek to apply". If he > >agrees, you win, if not you appeal. > > It would definitely be a good start. The way to get an appeal on a roll (you get first dibs because you are appealing) is to show inconsistencies in the original trial. Well, wait a minute: what are we aiming for here? Are we putting our efforts towards a potential -trial-? Or an appeal of the pre-trial injunction. Based on all the discussions that have taken place so far, they have all been aimed more appropriately at a -trial-. The arguments that we would use on appeal are MUCH different than those we've been discussing so far. I actually think we would win an appeal, for reasons I have not yet discussed. I think it would be much more difficult to win at trial, which is where we ought to be focussing our efforts. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 10:22:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA05552 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:22:14 -0500 Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts1.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.139]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA05549 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:22:13 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.226.11]) by tomts3-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000224151526.SZNA3031.tomts3-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:15:26 -0500 Message-ID: <38B54C3E.7DEEC431@sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:20:30 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) References: <200002240629.WAA15692@ns1.filetron.com> <20000223224706.F14206@duskglow.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Russell Miller wrote: > > Even if DVD is a program (which I think we've proved reasonably conclusively > that it is), I'm a little hesitant to think that this could sway anything. > > Isn't the DVD CONTENT what is being protected, and isn't that arguably the > intent of the law? This strikes me as a technicality and somewhat weak. > > Not that I don't think it's a great argument. It is. I just don't think the > judge will buy it. I think it's very possible he could say "yes, that's what > the law says, but this is the intent of the law, so..." Yes, he could - but at this point in the argument it is essential to point out that the distinction found in the legislative history between reverse engineering computer programs and reverse engineering protective devices for copyrighted works is a false and meaningless one. DVD Media (we argue) is a not-unique example of a something that fits both descriptions: another example is a web browser with (hypothetical) access controls: it is -both- a "computer program", and provides access to copyrighted works (virtually every HTML document). Plenty of 'programs' are routinely used to provide access to copyrighted works - would the judge object to a program that interoperated with a, say, multimedia encyclopedia program? Without the interference of "access controls" it is not difficult to erase the distinction between 'program' and 'access to copyrighted work' - why should the distinction be so sharp when access controls like CSS are introduced? I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 10:35:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA09880 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:35:35 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA09876 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:35:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 25019 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 15:40:17 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:40:17 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000224104017.Q23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000224052414.24656.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224052414.24656.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:24:14PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:24:14PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Turing completeness is a property of languages, not programs. All > instructions are translated into assembly before they are executed. > Assembly is turing complete, (proof left to reader). Therefore all > instruction sets that run on a computer would meet the definition of a > program based on this. You're correct, of course; assembly (i.e. binary) is by definition Turing Complete. It can't *not* be Turing Complete. But is a flat ASCII text file? As someone else pointed out here, you can take the contents of a flat ASCII text file and tell your computer to execute that data as a stream of CPU opcodes. Of course, it won't work, but at the point of execution it is being represented as a Turing Complete language and could therefore be called a program. Does this actually make it so? > I have never seen anybody outside of this list tack 'Turing > Completeness' into a definition of a program. I think the definition > that I've seen the most is something like: 'A program is a collection > of commands and data that produce predicatble results when executed on > a computer'. I've seen that definition too. And it makes a great definition for a high school computer science teacher when teaching computer literacy. The question is, does it make a good legal definition, or do we want something more precise? > I much prefer the object oriented philosophy: 'Everything is an > object'. Objects have methods and state. Programs are objects, a > methods is an objects, state is an object. You might as well fall back on the Turing concept that "all data is program, all program is data" and declare any stream of 1's and 0's as a program. It leaves too much room open to rationalization, because conceptually you can argue that *anything* is a program, which defeats the whole purpose of defining something legally. If we want to argue based on the definition of "program", we should be able to clearly define what structured data forms do not qualify. Imagine the difference between music and language. They are both structured sound, and a musician may argue that music communicates in the same way language does. The musician, unfortunately, is a partial source. The fact remains that true language has the ability to convey specialized information in a way music cannot. There's a line. If we want to draw a line here, then I maintain that the Turing Completeness of the underlying structure (i.e., the language) is an excellent way of doing that from an engineering standpoint. From this POV, MPEG-2 would not be a program, because the underlying structure is not a Turing Complete language. If we don't want to draw a line here, we shouldn't be mucking about with definitions for "program". Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 10:35:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA09995 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:35:46 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA09971 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:35:45 -0500 Received: from [38.32.90.143] (helo=ip143.bedford16.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12O0JW-0003fH-00; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:36:26 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:35:34 GMT Message-ID: <38b54c85.2095005@mail.tiac.net> References: <200002241513.HAA18601@ns1.filetron.com> In-Reply-To: <200002241513.HAA18601@ns1.filetron.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id KAA09988 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:13:59 -0800, you wrote: >Russell Miller wrote: >>Even if DVD is a program (which I think we've proved reasonably conclusively >>that it is), I'm a little hesitant to think that this could sway anything. >> >>Isn't the DVD CONTENT what is being protected, and isn't that arguably the >>intent of the law? This strikes me as a technicality and somewhat weak. >> >>Not that I don't think it's a great argument. It is. I just don't think the >>judge will buy it. > >You forget one thing. The whole thing is content. It's a completely different ballgame. He needs to understand that DVD is not a movie system. It's an interactive platform. It's in fact very close to a console system. One (non-legal) argument might be to repeat DVD's original "big lie"--that there was no demand for a foolproof large interactive multimedia format outside of movies. This is why DVD is saddled with all these controls and "authorized players" in the first place. ie: Distributors of DeCSS might argue that access to educational DVDs on Linux is as important as providing Net access to schools. (I know not a legal point. I guess this is for the PR war.) Now that Sigma and ATI will remedy the lack of authorized Linux DVD player, it's less urgent. But DeCSS/LiViD proved the economic viability of these upcoming players, just as MS-DOS proved the viability of the IBM PC. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 10:41:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA17096 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:41:28 -0500 Received: from mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (ftp1.imagine-sw.com [206.232.17.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA17092 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:41:22 -0500 Received: from metermaid.imagine_ny.com (metermaid [192.9.201.29]) by mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA04114 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:45:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from imagine-sw.com by metermaid.imagine_ny.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09785; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:41:27 -0500 Message-ID: <38B55126.3FF46DEB@imagine-sw.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:41:26 -0500 From: Francisco Figueirido Organization: Imagine Software, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... References: <200002240449.UAA09802@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: > > >> > As I pointed out in another post, both approaches (DVD media as > >> > "program, and CSS as "program") may be valid: I'm not sure why you > >> > choose the former over the latter as more plausible (from a legal > >> > standpoint: Dana has effectively demonstrated that it is plausible from > >> > a technical standpoint). I still hold the view that a court would be > >> > more comfortable in finding that CSS as a device/method is more > >> > consistent with the idea of a "computer program". > >> > > >> > Either way, nothing prevents us from arguing -both-. > > > >> Forgive me if this is inane, IANAE (I am not an engineer). CSS is BOTH a > >> scrambling and unscrambling system. The program that adds CSS to a given title > >> may not enter in to the question, but the program that descrambles it lives in > >> every DVD player as a set of instructions that tells the hardware what to do > >> with the keys to unlock the disc. Doesn't it? > > > >IANAEE (I am not an engineer either). As Rob has pointed out, the fact > >that -a program- makes use of the CSS info on the DVD does not by itself > >make CSS a program. As to your second point, DeCSS does not attempt to > >interface with the program that does the decrypting, it attempts to > >-mimic- the program that does the decrypting. This only underlines the > >completely uncontroversial observation that DeCSS is a program - we need > >to establish a second "program" at the other end (i.e. either within the > >DVD data or in CSS itself.) > > > >What remains to be seen is whether either the DVD data or CSS can be > >seen as an -incomplete set of instructions- that are superimposed upon a > >program to fulfill the task of a program. (word overuse alert.) I think > >the key is determining whether either the DVD data or the CSS system > >embody -instructions- rather than simply static data. If either can be > >established, then I think we still have a shot under 1201(f)(2). > > Dana managed to convince me. What I gather is that they arranged it in such a way that it is impossible to make a DVD w/o doing the kind of work it takes to put a Linux distro together. Even if you didn't want any gimmicks. > Without going again around the issue of what qualifies as software, I would argue that it is irrelevant whether the data in a .vob file is consider a program or not. If a company we all love :-) decided that the next version of their favorite word processing program would ENCRYPT the files as they are saved and kept the encryption algorithm secret, I am sure we would still feel very strongly that we have a right to reverse engineer (or plainly poke around and find a key!) so that, say, AbiWord can read those files. This has nothing to do with the files being programs or not. The interoperability is between AbiWord and the creator of the file. I think the same applies to .vob files: interoperability must be considered between a viewer (and we can safely assume that the viewer is capable ONLY of playing UNENCRYPTED movies) and the program that created those files. This is where DeCSS enters, as a bridge that allows a completely legal movie player (which doesn't need any CSS-related license) to read correctly data that you have payed for and somebody encrypted. IANAL, but I see that there is a problem, though, because, if I am not mistaken, the MPAA is suing over the distribution of a Windows program (or was the source code distributed?). For a techie like me this is an almost irrelevant issue, but might not be for the judge. It is irrelevant because it only affects the manner in which data is transferred from the creator of the .vob file to the player (i.e., collect data, encrypt data, burn data to DVD, run DeCSS, write data to disk and then run the player offline, or send it to a socket and run the player on another machine, who cares? The judge might.) As a techie also the notion of `primary purpose' seems suspect. The judge seemed to have made a point of the fact that DeCSS was a Windows program and therefore it couldn't be argued that its `primary purpose' was to provide interoperability with a Linux-based player. Maybe this shouldn't be argued; instead, the argument that DeCSS is necessary to provide interoperability with independently written (OpenSource) movie players that would run on Windows, or Linux, or whatever, can be made. Maybe I am just rambling, in which case I apologize ... -- Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com 400 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10017 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 10:42:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA17340 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:42:37 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA17337 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:42:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 25030 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 15:47:20 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:47:20 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Media *is* program. Message-ID: <20000224104720.R23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000224003411.C28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224003411.C28173@nacs.net>; from Jason M. Felice on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:34:11AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:34:11AM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > Okay, I'm looking at section 3.7 of the DVD faq at > http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.7 > > and I can state this: > > 1) The command set supported by the DVD player for audio/visual content is > 100% bona-fide Turing Complete. It satisfies our (techies) "minimal set > of requirements for a program." Absolutely. > 2) Further, the command set appears as complete as, if not more so, than > the CPU of the first computer I ever owned (which was an Atari 800, which > had the 6802/6811 processor - the same processor as the Commodore 64, which > was more common, even the same processor as the Commodore 64's floopy drive > ;). I grew up with Atari 8-bits too. Not to quibble, but they used the 6502. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 10:51:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19566 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:51:38 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA19563 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:51:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 25040 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 15:56:21 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:56:21 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000224105621.S23265@linuxpower.org> References: <200002241513.HAA18601@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002241513.HAA18601@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:13:59AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:13:59AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Russell Miller wrote: > >Even if DVD is a program (which I think we've proved reasonably conclusively > >that it is), I'm a little hesitant to think that this could sway anything. > > > >Isn't the DVD CONTENT what is being protected, and isn't that arguably the > >intent of the law? This strikes me as a technicality and somewhat weak. > > > >Not that I don't think it's a great argument. It is. I just don't think the > >judge will buy it. > > You forget one thing. The whole thing is content. It's a completely different ballgame. He needs to understand that DVD is not a movie system. It's an interactive platform. It's in fact very close to a console system. > Actually, I think it'd be informative to explore comparisons between DVD and video game consoles. As this discussion progresses, it's beginning to sound more and more like there's no real difference. If we can show that technologically there is no hard line between the two, then I'd say the recent Connectix/Sony case would apply here. > >I think it's very possible he could say "yes, that's what > >the law says, but this is the intent of the law, so..." > > > >Or maybe I'm just cynical. It needs to be brought up, though. This isn't > >something to base a case on, IMO. > > Guys, feel free to burst my bubble on this one. If you have anyway of doing so. > > >But, then again, IANAL, IAJASPUA (I am just a stupid programmer/unix admin) > > Likewise :) IAJM : I Am Just Me. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 11:06:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA23432 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:06:11 -0500 Received: from rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA23428 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:06:09 -0500 Received: from bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.227.226]) by rulilx.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10336 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:06:51 +0100 (MET) Received: (from roland@localhost) by bosch.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16047 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:06:51 +0100 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:06:51 +0100 From: Roland Nagtegaal To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000224170651.A16042@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> References: <200002241513.HAA18601@ns1.filetron.com> <20000224105621.S23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224105621.S23265@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:56:21AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:56:21AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Actually, I think it'd be informative to explore comparisons between DVD and > video game consoles. As this discussion progresses, it's beginning to sound > more and more like there's no real difference. > > If we can show that technologically there is no hard line between the two, then > I'd say the recent Connectix/Sony case would apply here. Does anybody remember Philips failed attempt to market CDI ? That certainly were programs. There really is a computer in a CDI player. It failed, and now you can hardly find them anymore, but can you do the same kind of things with DVD as you can with CDI ? It might never have been sold out of Europe, I wouldn't know. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 11:08:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA24137 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:08:53 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24134 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:08:51 -0500 Received: from [38.32.91.98] (helo=ip98.bedford17.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12O0pX-0005ED-00; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:09:32 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:08:40 GMT Message-ID: <38b65629.4564250@mail.tiac.net> References: <200002240449.UAA09802@ns1.filetron.com> <38B55126.3FF46DEB@imagine-sw.com> In-Reply-To: <38B55126.3FF46DEB@imagine-sw.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id LAA24135 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:41:26 -0500, Francisco wrote: >and the program that created those files. This is where DeCSS enters, as a >bridge that allows a completely legal movie player (which doesn't need any >CSS-related license) to read correctly data that you have payed for and >somebody encrypted. I would only change movie player to "completely legal DVD Video client." Let's not cede the format to our foes. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 11:18:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26729 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:18:19 -0500 Received: from dial202.roadrunner.com (dial202.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.202]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26723 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:18:16 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial202.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA01318 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:21:48 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:21:47 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000224092146.A1062@localhost> References: <20000224052414.24656.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000224104017.Q23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224104017.Q23265@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:40:17AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:40:17AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:24:14PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > Turing completeness is a property of languages, not programs. All > > instructions are translated into assembly before they are executed. > > Assembly is turing complete, (proof left to reader). Therefore all > > instruction sets that run on a computer would meet the definition of a > > program based on this. > > You're correct, of course; assembly (i.e. binary) is by definition > Turing Complete. It can't *not* be Turing Complete. > > But is a flat ASCII text file? As someone else pointed out here, you > can take the contents of a flat ASCII text file and tell your computer > to execute that data as a stream of CPU opcodes. Of course, it won't > work, but at the point of execution it is being represented as a Turing > Complete language and could therefore be called a program. Does this > actually make it so? There is problem with this argument. The mapping between ASCII bytes and opcodes is not a property of ASCII, but rather a property of the CPU you are jammed the bytes into. ASCII is not a computer language. For example you can only be sure that char c = '0x80'; is a RET on x86 hardward, not m68k or alpha. I think the first comment about Turing completeness has it backwards. You can write data formatting languages that are _not_ Turing complete. HTML is an example. The fact that the "DVD instruction set" is Turing complete is necessary to write "programs". But I also think that is all we need to show in the case of DVDs. > > I have never seen anybody outside of this list tack 'Turing > > Completeness' into a definition of a program. I think the definition > > that I've seen the most is something like: 'A program is a collection > > of commands and data that produce predicatble results when executed on > > a computer'. > > I've seen that definition too. And it makes a great definition for a high > school computer science teacher when teaching computer literacy. The question > is, does it make a good legal definition, or do we want something more precise? If we are going to be linguistically precise, we had better not say that programs are predictable. They aren't. They are deterministic, which is a very different ball of wax. Take, f(y) = 4. * a * x * (1. - x) for values of the control parameter 0 <= a <= 1. f(y) is a determinstic equation. If we iterate the f(y) so that x_(i+1) = y_i, then For a = 0.1, the values of x_i are predictable (they tend to zero). For a = 0.9, the values of x_i are not predictable. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 11:18:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26842 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:18:58 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26839 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:18:57 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 26E3D76F5; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:20:05 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:12:32 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022410200500.05030@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > >"(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 identification and > >analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling > >interoperability of an independently created computer program with > >other programs, [...] > > But 1201(f)(4): > > For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the > ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such > programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. > > > It can be argued that you cannot interoperate with the 'program' on DVD > because this clause aims at interchange of data and DVD Video's do not > engage in such an activity. They *are* the data. DVD Video is a program that contains data. It's purpose is to manage that data. Lots of programs contain their own data. As an example, the code for css-descramble.c, which is posted to my dorm room door, contains long tables of binary data. This data is directly used by the program (after it has all been compiled of course) to do what the program is designed for. The challenge is to persuade the judge... -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu "I don't believe in sweeping social change being manifested by one person, unless he has an atomic weapon." -- Howard Chaykin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 11:36:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA31504 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:36:33 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA31501 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:36:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 14172 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 16:32:36 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 16:32:36 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA27684; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:37:11 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:37:11 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241637.IAA27684@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:13:59AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> Russell Miller wrote: >> >Even if DVD is a program (which I think we've proved reasonably conclusively >> >that it is), I'm a little hesitant to think that this could sway anything. >> > >> >Isn't the DVD CONTENT what is being protected, and isn't that arguably the >> >intent of the law? This strikes me as a technicality and somewhat weak. >> > >> >Not that I don't think it's a great argument. It is. I just don't think the >> >judge will buy it. >> >> You forget one thing. The whole thing is content. It's a completely different ballgame. He needs to understand that DVD is not a movie system. It's an interactive platform. It's in fact very close to a console system. >> > >Actually, I think it'd be informative to explore comparisons between DVD and >video game consoles. As this discussion progresses, it's beginning to sound >more and more like there's no real difference. >If we can show that technologically there is no hard line between the two, then >I'd say the recent Connectix/Sony case would apply here. > > >> >I think it's very possible he could say "yes, that's what >> >the law says, but this is the intent of the law, so..." >> > >> >Or maybe I'm just cynical. It needs to be brought up, though. This isn't >> >something to base a case on, IMO. >> >> Guys, feel free to burst my bubble on this one. If you have anyway of doing so. >> >> >But, then again, IANAL, IAJASPUA (I am just a stupid programmer/unix admin) >> >> Likewise :) > >IAJM : I Am Just Me. :) > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 11:37:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA31682 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:37:11 -0500 Received: from draco.tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA31679 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:37:08 -0500 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12NxOy-00036K-00 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:29:52 -0600 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:29:52 -0600 (CST) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) In-Reply-To: <38B54C3E.7DEEC431@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The DVD is a program argument has merit, however, if this is what is argued, the statute retains it's teeth. It would be only a matter of time before we would be in the same position again with some other copy protection means... (Audio DVDs perhaps?) IMHO, it would be better to attack the principals of the law, rather than sneak through on essentially a technicality... Unless, of course, we argue that the distinction between "programs" and "content" itself is unwarranted... That is why the idea of persuing the right granted for "Home Viewing" sounds more appealing to me - this would set a legal precident that would guarentee rights to view encrypted content in one's home, no matter what the MPAA does. The "Authority" argument and the existance of public domain content on DVDs are also IMHO "good" arguments because they both focus on the uncostitutionality of the law, rather than on how the law is worded. Just my $.02... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA / <_/ / / < / (_ Russell Miller wrote: > > > > Even if DVD is a program (which I think we've proved reasonably conclusively > > that it is), I'm a little hesitant to think that this could sway anything. > > > > Isn't the DVD CONTENT what is being protected, and isn't that arguably the > > intent of the law? This strikes me as a technicality and somewhat weak. > > > > Not that I don't think it's a great argument. It is. I just don't think the > > judge will buy it. I think it's very possible he could say "yes, that's what > > the law says, but this is the intent of the law, so..." > > Yes, he could - but at this point in the argument it is essential to > point out that the distinction found in the legislative history between > reverse engineering computer programs and reverse engineering protective > devices for copyrighted works is a false and meaningless one. > > DVD Media (we argue) is a not-unique example of a something that fits > both descriptions: another example is a web browser with (hypothetical) > access controls: it is -both- a "computer program", and provides access > to copyrighted works (virtually every HTML document). Plenty of > 'programs' are routinely used to provide access to copyrighted works - > would the judge object to a program that interoperated with a, say, > multimedia encyclopedia program? Without the interference of "access > controls" it is not difficult to erase the distinction between 'program' > and 'access to copyrighted work' - why should the distinction be so > sharp when access controls like CSS are introduced? > > I. > > -- > ____ > | | Ian R. Hay > |____| Toronto, Canada > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 11:45:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01999 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:45:35 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA01996 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:45:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 14584 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 16:41:39 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 16:41:39 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA29040; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:46:13 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:46:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241646.IAA29040@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu DVD systems may be considered consoles. :) More to follow check the DVD is a program comments. Rares Jason M. Felice wrote: >On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:55:25AM +0200, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> >> >"(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 identification and >> >analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling >> >interoperability of an independently created computer program with >> >other programs, [...] >> >> But 1201(f)(4): >> >> For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the >> ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such >> programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. >> >> >> It can be argued that you cannot interoperate with the 'program' on DVD >> because this clause aims at interchange of data and DVD Video's do not >> engage in such an activity. They *are* the data. > >Blah. Programs are a subset of data, of course they are data. But we could >argue that it is also a program, and the judge cares no further. If he did, >we'd have to explain how, since programs are sufficiently complex, we tend to >anthropomorphize (is that right?) them and say that programs *do* things, when >they really don't - CPUs do. > >I don't think that's a point. > >> >> Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 11:52:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06312 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:52:52 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA06300 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:52:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 14999 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 16:48:56 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 16:48:56 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA30073; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:53:30 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:53:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241653.IAA30073@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ian Hay wrote: >Rares Marian wrote: >> >> It would definitely be a good start. The way to get an appeal on a roll (you get first dibs because you are appealing) is to show inconsistencies in the original trial. > >Well, wait a minute: what are we aiming for here? Are we putting our >efforts towards a potential -trial-? Or an appeal of the pre-trial >injunction. Based on all the discussions that have taken place so far, >they have all been aimed more appropriately at a -trial-. The arguments >that we would use on appeal are MUCH different than those we've been >discussing so far. > >I actually think we would win an appeal, for reasons I have not yet >discussed. I think it would be much more difficult to win at trial, >which is where we ought to be focussing our efforts. I'm saying if we mention this to him now, and we lose it will look good on our part to the appelate court. Besides, the MPAA isn't Sony, and although they're only supposed to protect the interests of their clients, I doubt Valenti is going to quit. So either we will see them in appelate court. It's good to look good from the start. >I. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 11:52:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA05967 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:52:32 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA05930 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:52:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 14981 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 16:48:31 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 16:48:31 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA30040; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:53:06 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:53:06 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241653.IAA30040@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_951411185-30029-0" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_951411185-30029-0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Ian Hay wrote: >Rares Marian wrote: >> >> It would definitely be a good start. The way to get an appeal on a roll (you get first dibs because you are appealing) is to show inconsistencies in the original trial. > >Well, wait a minute: what are we aiming for here? Are we putting our >efforts towards a potential -trial-? Or an appeal of the pre-trial >injunction. Based on all the discussions that have taken place so far, >they have all been aimed more appropriately at a -trial-. The arguments >that we would use on appeal are MUCH different than those we've been >discussing so far. > >I actually think we would win an appeal, for reasons I have not yet >discussed. I think it would be much more difficult to win at trial, >which is where we ought to be focussing our efforts. I'm saying if we mention this to him now, and we lose it will look good on our part to the appelate court. Besides, the MPAA isn't Sony, and although they're only supposed to protect the interests of their clients, I doubt Valenti is going to quit. So either we will see them in appelate court. It's good to look good from the start. >I. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com ------------=_951411185-30029-0 Content-Type: application/x-zip-compressed ; name="Pr2_23.zip" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Pr2_23.zip" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:03:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08570 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:03:18 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08567 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:03:18 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id A6EE776F5; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:04:25 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:45:27 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002240449.UAA09802@ns1.filetron.com> <38B55126.3FF46DEB@imagine-sw.com> In-Reply-To: <38B55126.3FF46DEB@imagine-sw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022411042501.05030@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Francisco Figueirido wrote: > Without going again around the issue of what qualifies as software, I would > argue that it is irrelevant whether the data in a .vob file is consider a > program or not. If a company we all love :-) decided that the next version > of their favorite word processing program would ENCRYPT the files as they > are saved and kept the encryption algorithm secret, I am sure we would still > feel very strongly that we have a right to reverse engineer (or plainly poke > around and find a key!) so that, say, AbiWord can read those files. This has > nothing to do with the files being programs or not. The interoperability is > between AbiWord and the creator of the file. I think the same applies to > .vob files: interoperability must be considered between a viewer (and we can > safely assume that the viewer is capable ONLY of playing UNENCRYPTED movies) > and the program that created those files. This is where DeCSS enters, as a > bridge that allows a completely legal movie player (which doesn't need any > CSS-related license) to read correctly data that you have payed for and > somebody encrypted. You're missing part of the point though. The encrypted data is the copyright of another person. Under the DMCA (chapter 12) you can not crack the encryption just because you want to... (well, you can currently, but when section (a) comes into affect it will be illegal) Section (f)(1) would allow you to break any encryption on the *word processing program* in order to interoperate with it's output, but you could not break the encryption on the *data* just so another program can read it. This assumes a fairly narrow definition of "program" just to be safe. > IANAL, but I see that there is a problem, though, because, if I am not > mistaken, the MPAA is suing over the distribution of a Windows program (or > was the source code distributed?). For a techie like me this is an almost > irrelevant issue, but might not be for the judge. It is irrelevant because > it only affects the manner in which data is transferred from the creator of > the .vob file to the player (i.e., collect data, encrypt data, burn data to > DVD, run DeCSS, write data to disk and then run the player offline, or send > it to a socket and run the player on another machine, who cares? The judge > might.) As a techie also the notion of `primary purpose' seems suspect. The > judge seemed to have made a point of the fact that DeCSS was a Windows > program and therefore it couldn't be argued that its `primary purpose' was > to provide interoperability with a Linux-based player. Maybe this shouldn't > be argued; instead, the argument that DeCSS is necessary to provide > interoperability with independently written (OpenSource) movie players that > would run on Windows, or Linux, or whatever, can be made. Maybe I am just > rambling, in which case I apologize ... I'm not sure our arguments under 1201(f) will work for DeCSS binaries. The source would be protected by the first ammendment (hopefully). We will probably have to rely more on fair use for this case... -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu "I don't believe in sweeping social change being manifested by one person, unless he has an atomic weapon." -- Howard Chaykin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:05:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09341 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:05:02 -0500 Received: from dial187.roadrunner.com (dial187.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.187]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09338 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:04:59 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial187.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01725 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:08:32 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:08:31 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Off-Topic: DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000224100830.A1345@localhost> References: <38B54C3E.7DEEC431@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Tim Neu on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:29:52AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:29:52AM -0600, Tim Neu wrote: > > The DVD is a program argument has merit, however, if this is what is > argued, the statute retains it's teeth. It would be only a matter of time > before we would be in the same position again with some other copy > protection means... (Audio DVDs perhaps?) IMHO, it would be better to > attack the principals of the law, rather than sneak through on essentially > a technicality... > > Unless, of course, we argue that the distinction between "programs" and > "content" itself is unwarranted... > > That is why the idea of persuing the right granted for "Home Viewing" > sounds more appealing to me - this would set a legal precident that would > guarentee rights to view encrypted content in one's home, no matter what > the MPAA does. > > The "Authority" argument and the existance of public domain content on > DVDs are also IMHO "good" arguments because they both focus on the > uncostitutionality of the law, rather than on how the law is worded. > > Just my $.02... I agree that "sneaking though" should not be the only part of this case that gets argued. I think there is a strong connection between the insuperability of writing and reading (or recording and performing if you prefer) for people and the insuperability of an access program and the data that is accessed. The reason this insuperability is at issue here is that this exactly what the law is _designed_ to do --- it is trying to drive a wedge between two (previously) insuperable activites. The question of whether people use their built-in hardware of voice and ears or use "technological measures" to enlarge the distance over which those interactions takes place doesn't matter philosophically. I think in the long term this is where we will see the biggest ramifications of these types of laws for society as a whole. Infringing speech is not protected. The courts have clearly said that the copyright clause carves out some part of "free speech" and places it clearly outside the bounds of protection. Unfortunately, I don't think the courts have ever said, _in the context of copyright law_, here are boundaries that the First Amendment carves out, that the Congress' copyright power may never transgress. Unless and until we see a clear boundary set down, _for copyright in particular_, we will keep seeing attempts to use the copyright clause to "creep" up on the First Amendment. It has been happening for the length of copyright term for a long time too. Both "access" and "term extension" are part of the same phenomenon. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:06:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10815 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:06:51 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA10672 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:06:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 20034 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 17:07:10 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224170710.20033.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:07:10 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:07:10 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD development process, in brief To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Dana Parker wrote: > http://www.dvdexperts.com/education.htm Thanks, I found this pretty helpful. Here's some quotes that are relevant to finding the 2nd "program" required in the interoperability definition. The text supports both the proposition that the interactive navigation user interface is a program and that the authoring tools are programs. "Almost all DVD video projects include some kind of interactivity controlled through a series of menus. These menus can be extremely complex and include animations and full motion video." This describes a user interface program. "Authoring is the step in DVD where all interactivity and formatting is accomplished. This includes features such as Copy Protection, Region Coding, Navigation, etc. Authoring can be the most laborious part of the process, requiring an intimate knowledge of DVD specifications, programming, and development tools. Authoring tools are similar to VideoCD or CD-I tools. However, because the DVD Video format is so much more complex, the tools are much more capable and complex as well. System platforms include SGI, MAC, and Windows NT. The language is proprietary and cannot be recreated using C or some other programming language." Note however that this quote proves that the authoring tools ARE programs (they run under SGI, MAC, or NT and are written in a proprietary programming language). As a matter of computer science, C is turing complete, so the last sentence is provably false. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:11:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA12071 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:11:16 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA12068 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:11:14 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA20467 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:12:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B56621.8D8F7479@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:10:57 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) References: <200002241513.HAA18601@ns1.filetron.com> <20000224105621.S23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224170651.A16042@bosch.Lorentz.LeidenUniv.NL> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Roland Nagtegaal wrote: > Does anybody remember Philips failed attempt to market CDI ? That certainly were > programs. There really is a computer in a CDI player. It failed, and now you > can hardly find them anymore, but can you do the same kind of things with DVD as > you can with CDI ? > It might never have been sold out of Europe, I wouldn't know. Good parallel - DVD is actually a logical successor to CD-i (which didn't really fail, it just subsided into a kiosk/training niche rather than a consumer one). You can actually do MORE with DVD than you could with CD-i, but CD-i did have an operating system residing inthe firmware (OS9, if I recall - have to look it up). It required a dedicated authoring system, just as DVD does. It was a spec, just like DVD is. It was also the basis for Video CD, a precursor to DVD, that has now been upgraded to Super Video CD, and is very big in China. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:18:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA13801 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:18:20 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA13798 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:18:18 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16330 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:29:06 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:29:05 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000224092905.G14206@duskglow.com> References: <38B54C3E.7DEEC431@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:29:52AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'd have to agree with you and this is another thing that's bothering me. The law has to be essentially destroyed. A technicality won't significantly help our cause in the long run. --Russell On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:29:52AM -0600, Tim Neu wrote: > > The DVD is a program argument has merit, however, if this is what is > argued, the statute retains it's teeth. It would be only a matter of time > before we would be in the same position again with some other copy > protection means... (Audio DVDs perhaps?) IMHO, it would be better to > attack the principals of the law, rather than sneak through on essentially > a technicality... > > Unless, of course, we argue that the distinction between "programs" and > "content" itself is unwarranted... > > That is why the idea of persuing the right granted for "Home Viewing" > sounds more appealing to me - this would set a legal precident that would > guarentee rights to view encrypted content in one's home, no matter what > the MPAA does. > > The "Authority" argument and the existance of public domain content on > DVDs are also IMHO "good" arguments because they both focus on the > uncostitutionality of the law, rather than on how the law is worded. > > Just my $.02... -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:22:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA14613 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:22:42 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA14610 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:22:39 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04086 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:21:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:21:43 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Media *is* program. Message-ID: <20000224122143.G28173@nacs.net> References: <20000224003411.C28173@nacs.net> <20000224104720.R23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000224104720.R23265@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:47:20AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > I grew up with Atari 8-bits too. Not to quibble, but they used the 6502. :) > Oh, yeah. I didn't learn assembly until C-64. Why did I think that... oh well. > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:26:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA16487 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:26:55 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA16471 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:26:53 -0500 Received: (qmail 17109 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 17:22:58 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 17:22:58 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA02823; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:27:32 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:27:32 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241727.JAA02823@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD development process, in brief Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: >--- Dana Parker wrote: >> http://www.dvdexperts.com/education.htm > >Thanks, I found this pretty helpful. >Authoring tools are similar to VideoCD or CD-I tools. However, because >the DVD Video format is so much more complex, the tools are much more >capable and complex as well. System platforms include SGI, MAC, and >Windows NT. The language is proprietary and cannot be recreated using C >or some other programming language." > >Note however that this quote proves that the authoring tools ARE >programs (they run under SGI, MAC, or NT and are written in a >proprietary programming language). As a matter of computer science, C >is turing complete, so the last sentence is provably false. DVD is a console we just need more examples. As for turing completeness show Kaplan a list of Bindings available between programming languages and C. Case closed. > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:29:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA17329 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:29:46 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA17300 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:29:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 7737 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 17:30:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224173020.7736.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:30:20 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:30:20 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Media *is* program. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > Gentlemen (said for effect and not to be sexist), what we have here > is a programming language which I can *literally* and *trivially* write a > program to balance my checkbook in. Careful, this does not imply turing completeness. For example, MS Excel's spreadsheet language and the database langage SQL are NOT turing complete, though they are clearly useful programming languages. Turing completeness is sufficient to prove the halting problem is undecidable. Many non-trivial languages can be shown to produce programs that always halt (this is a good thing for spreadsheets and SQL). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:33:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18106 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:33:06 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA18103 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:33:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 17501 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 17:29:10 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 17:29:10 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA04174; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:33:45 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:33:45 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241733.JAA04174@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Off-Topic: DVD is a program :) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: >On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:29:52AM -0600, Tim Neu wrote: >> >I agree that "sneaking though" should not be the only part of this case >that gets argued. I think there is a strong connection between the >insuperability of writing and reading (or recording and performing if >you prefer) for people and the insuperability of an access program >and the data that is accessed. No one's sneaking. DVD is a console. >The reason this insuperability is at issue here is that this exactly what >the law is _designed_ to do --- it is trying to drive a wedge between two >(previously) insuperable activites. The question of whether people use their >built-in hardware of voice and ears or use "technological measures" to >enlarge the distance over which those interactions takes place doesn't >matter philosophically. I'll buy that. >I think in the long term this is where we will see the biggest >ramifications of these types of laws for society as a whole. Infringing >speech is not protected. The courts have clearly said that the >copyright clause carves out some part of "free speech" and places it >clearly outside the bounds of protection. Unfortunately, I don't >think the courts have ever said, _in the context of copyright law_, here >are boundaries that the First Amendment carves out, that the Congress' >copyright power may never transgress. Like I said before, how far does openlaw.org want to go? Do they want to begin pushing 1st Amendment friendly laws or definitions? C'mon. We are losing the war because we're always on the defensive. >Unless and until we see a clear boundary set down, _for copyright >in particular_, we will keep seeing attempts to use the copyright clause >to "creep" up on the First Amendment. It has been happening for the >length of copyright term for a long time too. Both "access" and >"term extension" are part of the same phenomenon. Embrace and extend :/ > >Paul Fenimore Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:38:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA19477 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:38:59 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA19474 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:38:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 18016 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 17:35:04 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 17:35:04 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA05280; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:39:36 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:39:36 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241739.JAA05280@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Russell Miller wrote: >I'd have to agree with you and this is another thing that's bothering me. > >The law has to be essentially destroyed. A technicality won't significantly >help our cause in the long run. No technicality anymore. For the 15th time DVD is a console, LiViD is an emulator, and DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD. But the law needs to be ripped to shreds as it stands. Perhaps openlaw.org can contact the senators who tried to keep freedom safe when they amended Section 17 originally. I'm not kidding. If I had a better job, I'd be talking to them myself. >--Russell Rares >On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:29:52AM -0600, Tim Neu wrote: >> >> The DVD is a program argument has merit, however, if this is what is >> argued, the statute retains it's teeth. It would be only a matter of time >> before we would be in the same position again with some other copy >> protection means... (Audio DVDs perhaps?) IMHO, it would be better to >> attack the principals of the law, rather than sneak through on essentially >> a technicality... >> >> Unless, of course, we argue that the distinction between "programs" and >> "content" itself is unwarranted... >> >> That is why the idea of persuing the right granted for "Home Viewing" >> sounds more appealing to me - this would set a legal precident that would >> guarentee rights to view encrypted content in one's home, no matter what >> the MPAA does. >> >> The "Authority" argument and the existance of public domain content on >> DVDs are also IMHO "good" arguments because they both focus on the >> uncostitutionality of the law, rather than on how the law is worded. >> >> Just my $.02... > >-- >Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent >the views of any of my clients. > >http://www.duskglow.com >http://www.singlegeek.com >http://www.whathaveyoudone.org > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:41:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA19883 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:41:30 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA19880 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:41:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 18272 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 17:37:34 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 17:37:34 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA05908; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:42:08 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:42:08 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241742.JAA05908@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:13:59AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> Russell Miller wrote: >> >Even if DVD is a program (which I think we've proved reasonably conclusively >> >that it is), I'm a little hesitant to think that this could sway anything. >> > >> >Isn't the DVD CONTENT what is being protected, and isn't that arguably the >> >intent of the law? This strikes me as a technicality and somewhat weak. >> > >> >Not that I don't think it's a great argument. It is. I just don't think the >> >judge will buy it. >> >> You forget one thing. The whole thing is content. It's a completely different ballgame. He needs to understand that DVD is not a movie system. It's an interactive platform. It's in fact very close to a console system. >> > >Actually, I think it'd be informative to explore comparisons between DVD and >video game consoles. As this discussion progresses, it's beginning to sound >more and more like there's no real difference. Okay where do we begin? Game consoles have: Dedicated hardware for sound and video Instruction sets for sprite management (the old boxes anyways) General purpose within the context of interactive art and performance. I'll try to find out more. Rares >If we can show that technologically there is no hard line between the two, then >I'd say the recent Connectix/Sony case would apply here. >IAJM : I Am Just Me. :) > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:42:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA20250 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:42:47 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20243 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:42:46 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 943DD76F5; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:43:53 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Fair use research Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:27:45 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022411435300.05214@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hey, I decided to start looking for past cases that might give us an idea on how fair use (or other constitutional arguments) might help us in invalidating 1201. In a brief search, I've come up with fairuse.stanford.edu/primary/ which has a number of links to the constituional passages, specific laws, and judgements that help define fair use. Just briefly skimming through the beginning of the first cited case, Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc, I've found a lot of good argument over what exactly fair use is. Though not all of it is relevant to this case, an important point by the defence (who was claiming fair use as a defense from infringement) was that "Because the primary purpose of the Constitution's Copyright Clause is not to enrich authors and inventors but to encourage the progress of science and the production of creative works for the public good, only unfair uses of copyrighted materials are prohibited; fair uses are affirmatively guaranteed to the public." I think this is the kind of thing that we could do to most help the EFF lawyers win their case: read judgements and find the references that they can use to persuade the judge. This is the advantage a distributed legal effort can have. We can read more documents the MPAA, if we can get all the people who care about this issue to help out. We can muster more eyes. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Don't kid yourself. Little is relevant, and nothing lasts forever. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:44:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA20960 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:44:41 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA20957 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:44:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 18606 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 17:40:46 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 17:40:46 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA06625; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:45:18 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:45:18 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241745.JAA06625@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tim Neu wrote: > >The DVD is a program argument has merit, however, if this is what is >argued, the statute retains it's teeth. It would be only a matter of time >before we would be in the same position again with some other copy >protection means... (Audio DVDs perhaps?) IMHO, it would be better to >attack the principals of the law, rather than sneak through on essentially >a technicality... It ain't no technicality anymore, Toto. :) DVD Audio is a subset of DVD Media. Therefore it is still the same machine. We need to also make this point clear: DVD Media within the context of interactive artwork and performance, is a general purpose product. Video Audio Scripting. Dana, thank you. This could rule. More comparisons coming soon then a few warnings the first of which is catalogue the other topics and clean them up so we can inform people what the issues are. We can't ride on the Connectix/Sony case alone. This law needs to be severely discredited. We can't be happy with just letting Johansen off the hook. Valenti, despite how many times he denies it, is responsible for his and his father's arrest. Realize what's going on here. If it wasn't the MPAA calling up and saying, "This kid and his father have got some nerve, arrest them," then what's his father got to do with it. Also, careful when comparing to the Connectix case... is DeCSS an emulator? No. Does it provide the same services as an emulator? Yes, it let's you play what you already own. That is its purpose. The emulation functions >in a Virtual Game System or whatever Connectix calls it, lead up to the same result, ability to play the titles you own. Now we talked about decryption in DeCSS. Guess what LiViD does count as an emulator given the revelation of the DVD as a console. As a result we could arfue that DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD which is a win for us. Now the last part gets tricky because they could twist the case on us again. The MPAA said that in order to make DVD players, you need the specs, and a license for the Content Scrambling System. Here's where it all hinges then: Does DeCSS contain anything that is part of their CSS system? Does it need a license? Note I'm not speaking of a license to use as part of the DVD. I mean a license to make from the actual CSS blueprint (the design report doesn't count, dvddemystified.com doesn't need a special license to publish specs). So no license required to develop DeCSS, just like no license required from Sony to make Connectix' system. It was a completely independent development project, just because it does the same things doesn't mean you need a license. You need a license when it is based on the original design directly. You need a license when you're not inventing a product only integrating. LiViD is a complete alternative to the tools available on Windows. >Unless, of course, we argue that the distinction between "programs" and >"content" itself is unwarranted... > >That is why the idea of persuing the right granted for "Home Viewing" >sounds more appealing to me - this would set a legal precident that would >guarentee rights to view encrypted content in one's home, no matter what >the MPAA does. > >The "Authority" argument and the existance of public domain content on >DVDs are also IMHO "good" arguments because they both focus on the >uncostitutionality of the law, rather than on how the law is worded. Agreed free Johansen, destroy Section 17, embarass MPAA, drink champagne. >Just my $.02... >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you > / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." > / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA >/ <_/ / / < / (_ Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:48:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21807 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:48:58 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21804 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:48:57 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112] (may be forged)) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA03313 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:49:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000224115120.00b21bf0@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:49:35 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Technical arguments (was: DVD is a program :) In-Reply-To: References: <38B54C3E.7DEEC431@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I would suggest that we not worry about narrowing our arguments at this stage, though individuals may want to choose subtopics or threads to focus their attention on. By fully developing the various nodes, we will give the lawyers the best chance to choose the most effective ones. I'd suggest that some of these technical discussions are probably where the list can be most helpful. The technical analyses can help the lawyers to understand what the questions are, or why distinctions drawn in the law make no sense. A group of loopholes and technicalities might show the law to be so nonsensical that it fails at its purpose of protecting copyright, giving us a foothold for broader arguments of constitutionality. Plus, courts don't like deciding constitutional issues -- if we can give the courts alternative bases for a ruling and practical reasons behind the principles, it will make them more comfortable with "the right ruling." As we're working on a FAQ, let's try to generate as many technical questions and answers as we can. It's what we need as a base for the legal arguments. --Wendy At 06:29 AM 2/24/00 -0600, tim@tneu.visi.com wrote: >The DVD is a program argument has merit, however, if this is what is >argued, the statute retains it's teeth. It would be only a matter of time >before we would be in the same position again with some other copy >protection means... (Audio DVDs perhaps?) IMHO, it would be better to >attack the principals of the law, rather than sneak through on essentially >a technicality... > >Unless, of course, we argue that the distinction between "programs" and >"content" itself is unwarranted... > >That is why the idea of persuing the right granted for "Home Viewing" >sounds more appealing to me - this would set a legal precident that would >guarentee rights to view encrypted content in one's home, no matter what >the MPAA does. > >The "Authority" argument and the existance of public domain content on >DVDs are also IMHO "good" arguments because they both focus on the >uncostitutionality of the law, rather than on how the law is worded. > >Just my $.02... >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you > / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." > / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA >/ <_/ / / < / (_ wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:49:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21825 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:49:03 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA21821 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:49:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 19191 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 17:45:06 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 17:45:06 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA07535; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:49:38 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:49:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241749.JAA07535@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD sub FAQ please... Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >Roland Nagtegaal wrote: > >> Does anybody remember Philips failed attempt to market CDI ? That certainly were >> programs. There really is a computer in a CDI player. It failed, and now you >> can hardly find them anymore, but can you do the same kind of things with DVD as >> you can with CDI ? >> It might never have been sold out of Europe, I wouldn't know. > >Good parallel - DVD is actually a logical successor to CD-i (which didn't really >fail, it just subsided into a kiosk/training niche rather than a consumer one). You >can actually do MORE with DVD than you could with CD-i, but CD-i did have an >operating system residing inthe firmware (OS9, if I recall - have to look it up). It >required a dedicated authoring system, just as DVD does. It was a spec, just like DVD >is. It was also the basis for Video CD, a precursor to DVD, that has now been >upgraded to Super Video CD, and is very big in China. > New FAQ Requested: What is DVD Series...? Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 12:59:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA25015 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:59:59 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA25011 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:59:54 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16436 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:10:57 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:10:57 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Fair use research Message-ID: <20000224101056.H14206@duskglow.com> References: <00022411435300.05214@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <00022411435300.05214@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu>; from steve@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:27:45AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I agree, if we can keep ourselves from attempting to interpret them too much legally. And we have to be careful not to flood with information. Maybe some of the (non-involved) lawyers on the list could critique the citations and the ones that pass muster could be filtered up to the dvd-announce list. And we also need to remember this is an open forum - we may be helping the MPAA lawyers as much as ourselves. Not to say we shouldn't do it - just don't think that we're superior. Though the point could be made that we're flooding them with all sorts of possible defenses and they have no way of knowing which, if any, could possibly be used. Stretches them thinner, I like that (in the voice of Mo from "Smart Guy") That being said, I've been following this since the beginning, and some rather good arguments have been distilled from all of this so far. I really think we are in a position to help. I could go so far as to say we may be making a form of history. :) --Russell On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:27:45AM -0600, Steven Barker wrote: > We can read more documents the MPAA, if we can get all the people who care > about this issue to help out. We can muster more eyes. > -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:03:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA25809 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:03:36 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA25806 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:03:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 17263 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 18:04:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224180417.17262.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:04:17 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:04:17 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Programs sharing information To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Bryan Taylor wrote: > Is anyone prepared to argue that the encrypted content burned onto > the DVD's during manufacturing was NOT created by a 'program'? OK, I've managed to track down specific DVD authoring tools that, no surprise, are copmuter programs. In fact, once I read the dvd faq, I found a whole section of such tools.See http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#5.4 One such program is DVDMotion by MTC. This one lists the XingDVD decoder specifically as compatible for playback verification at the bottom of the following page: http://www.mtc2000.com/dvd/requirements.html 1201(f)(2) applies because DeCSS and/or LiViD interoperates with DVDMotion by exchanging information in the .vob files output by DVDMotion. These might be supplied on a pressed DVD purchased in a strore, or generated on-the-fly as part of the authoring process. DeCSS replaces XingDVD in this process. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:06:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA26622 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:06:34 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA26596 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:06:31 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id KAA12893 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:06:06 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:06:06 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000224100606.I9666@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200002241745.JAA06625@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200002241745.JAA06625@ns1.filetron.com>; from rmarian@linuxstart.com on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:45:18AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian writes: > Now we talked about decryption in DeCSS. Guess what LiViD does count as an emulator given the revelation of the DVD as a console. As a result we could arfue that DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD which is a win for us. Except that LiViD doesn't contain DeCSS. DeCSS is a separate program which does not run on Linux. I think LiViD's CSS code is based only on the stuff from Derek Fawcus (but I'm not sure); I don't know where he got his information about CSS, but at the very least it's a fresh implementation. Interestingly, copyleft.net's t-shirts contain css-auth code from Fawcus, not DeCSS code from Jon Johansen. Remember that DeCSS is much less efficient than the techniques Frank Stevenson found. I'd imagine that those techniques or refinements of them would be the basis for any future implementation of a CSS crack, at least going on technical merit rather than legal concerns. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:08:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA26986 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:08:10 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA26981 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:08:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 25269 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 18:12:52 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:12:52 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000224131252.T23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000224052414.24656.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000224104017.Q23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224092146.A1062@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224092146.A1062@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:21:47AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:21:47AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:40:17AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:24:14PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > > > Turing completeness is a property of languages, not programs. All > > > instructions are translated into assembly before they are executed. > > > Assembly is turing complete, (proof left to reader). Therefore all > > > instruction sets that run on a computer would meet the definition of a > > > program based on this. > > > > You're correct, of course; assembly (i.e. binary) is by definition > > Turing Complete. It can't *not* be Turing Complete. > > > > But is a flat ASCII text file? As someone else pointed out here, you > > can take the contents of a flat ASCII text file and tell your computer > > to execute that data as a stream of CPU opcodes. Of course, it won't > > work, but at the point of execution it is being represented as a Turing > > Complete language and could therefore be called a program. Does this > > actually make it so? > > There is problem with this argument. The mapping between ASCII bytes and > opcodes is not a property of ASCII, but rather a property of the CPU you > are jammed the bytes into. ASCII is not a computer language. This was my point. The argument was that any list of instructions, TC or not, was reconcilable to assembly opcodes, which are TC, so that any instruction list could be shown to be TC. I don't agree with this for the reason you just stated. My agreement above was to the fact that assembly itself was TC. If you take a non-TC data formatting language (ASCII, DBase .DBF, MPEG-2, etc.) and add extra architecture (which you would have to do) in order to make it reconcilable to a TC programming language, this does not mean that the original data is now Turing Complete. If this were the case, ASCII could be claimed to be a Turing Complete language. > > > I have never seen anybody outside of this list tack 'Turing > > > Completeness' into a definition of a program. I think the definition > > > that I've seen the most is something like: 'A program is a collection > > > of commands and data that produce predicatble results when executed on > > > a computer'. > > > > I've seen that definition too. And it makes a great definition for a high > > school computer science teacher when teaching computer literacy. The question > > is, does it make a good legal definition, or do we want something more precise? > > If we are going to be linguistically precise, we had better not say that > programs are predictable. They aren't. They are deterministic, which > is a very different ball of wax. This is a very good point. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:10:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27401 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:10:03 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27398 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:10:02 -0500 Received: from [38.32.78.230] (helo=ip230.bedford8.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12O2io-00023u-00; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:10:43 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD development process, in brief Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:09:49 GMT Message-ID: <38b87255.11776704@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000224170710.20033.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000224170710.20033.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id NAA27399 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:07:10 -0800 (PST), Bryan wrote: >"Authoring is the step in DVD where all interactivity and formatting is >accomplished. This includes features such as Copy Protection, Region >Coding, Navigation, etc. Authoring can be the most laborious part of >the process, requiring an intimate knowledge of DVD specifications, >programming, and development tools. > >Authoring tools are similar to VideoCD or CD-I tools. However, because >the DVD Video format is so much more complex, the tools are much more >capable and complex as well. System platforms include SGI, MAC, and >Windows NT. The language is proprietary and cannot be recreated using C >or some other programming language." Perhaps the authoring tool companies might have something to say about the MPAA limiting the market for DVD? Perhaps even the SEC? How many estimated Linux/FreeBSD users are there worldwide? __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:10:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27486 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:10:24 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA27476 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:10:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 1585 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 18:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224181100.1584.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:11:00 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:11:00 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > >OK, finally we're getting somewhere. I am asserting that it was. I will > >be VERY surprised if somebody built a non-computing device to do > > this. > > I think the normal high performance implementation of a cipher would > use ASICs. That they implement algorithms does not necessarily mean > that the algorithm will be a program in the sense required here. As I posted in another thread, DVDMotion by MTC is a DVD authoring tool that requires a compatible DVD-video decoder. Thus at least one such program exists. In fact, there's a whole list of them in the DVD FAQ. DVDMotion, in particular lists XingDVD among its compatible decoders. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:23:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA32592 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:23:15 -0500 Received: from dial121.roadrunner.com (dial121.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA32574 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:23:11 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial121.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02340 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:26:45 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:26:42 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Off-Topic: DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000224112641.B1345@localhost> References: <200002241733.JAA04174@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002241733.JAA04174@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:33:45AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: >I agree that "sneaking though" should not be the only part of this case >that gets argued. I think there is a strong connection between the >insuperability of writing and reading (or recording and performing if >you prefer) for people and the insuperability of an access program >and the data that is accessed. On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:33:45AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > No one's sneaking. DVD is a console. Thanks for the clarification. I was being lazy and rather than precise. It isn't sneaky. It relies on the core principle, but more needs to be done if we are to use "DVD is a console" to establish the larger principle. No offense intended to what has been done so far --- it is very insightful and useful. > Like I said before, how far does openlaw.org want to go? Do they want > to begin pushing 1st Amendment friendly laws or definitions? C'mon. > We are losing the war because we're always on the defensive. "No offense intended" are not empty words. I think that a defense based on the core priciple is a great place from which to begin an offensive. Paul Fenimore wrote: >Unless and until we see a clear boundary set down, _for copyright >in particular_, we will keep seeing attempts to use the copyright clause >to "creep" up on the First Amendment. It has been happening for the >length of copyright term for a long time too. Both "access" and >"term extension" are part of the same phenomenon. On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:33:45AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Embrace and extend :/ Exactly. I think that the idea of "fair use" is already pretty confused. It contains two distinct types of activities: (i) Copying into a tangible medium. I don't think that there are many people who will argue that this must be a fundamental right beyond regulation by Congress. But the fair use exception is designed to protect other guaranteed activities that would be impared by a blanket copyright: scholarship, criticism, teaching, etc. That is why these activites are mentioned in 17 USC 107. (ii) Performance involves no reproduction into a tangible medium (well, not counting the hardware between your ears). I claim that performance isn't protecting some more fundamental right. Private performance _is_ the fundamental right. This is why I keep throwing Supreme Court decision around. Congress didn't get it wrong when they put public performance in 106(4,5,6), but the sure as hell did _confuse_ the matter. Private performance belongs in 107 with the other protected activities. I think the way to explain this to the court is that the confusion of having performance in with the other (duplication into a tangible medium) aspects of fair use is that _Congress_ got confused and added the protected activity to the statutory fair use provisions. Reading USSC decision, one would not come to the conclusion that an activity that walks, talks and acts like reading would be any less protected than reading. The mistake was natural enough the first time around (when motion pictures came on the "scene"), but now that we've got other things that can be "performed", it really is time for the courts to set Congress straight. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:29:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02104 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:29:32 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA02101 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:29:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 23583 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 18:25:36 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 18:25:36 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA16572; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:30:07 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:30:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241830.KAA16572@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Technical arguments (was: DVD is a program :) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu We need two FAQs One for Section 17/Wire we here? sort of information and a huge FAQ on what DVD is. Dana convinced me DVD is software, now I'm arguing that it is a console. I'm not going to repeat the content of 20 of my last posts, but suffice it to say we're getting very close, possibly might have enough material to win a countersuit. I think also that Sony vs Connectix just became relevant, very relevant. DVD is a console, LiViD is a DVD emulator, DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD. Now I just need to draw up enough info to present DVD is a console as a bulletproof argument. Also, I'm not satisfied w/ just letting Johansen off the hook. One of the paragraphs (using the word loosely) in Sec;. 17 is not yet in effect. There has to be a way to kill it. It cannot be allowed to go into effect. Then we can talk to the original designers and tell them they screwed up royally, though not in so many words. Okay, flame resistant undies enabled, fire away. Rares Wendy Seltzer wrote: >I would suggest that we not worry about narrowing our arguments at this >stage, though individuals may want to choose subtopics or threads to focus >their attention on. By fully developing the various nodes, we will give >the lawyers the best chance to choose the most effective ones. > >I'd suggest that some of these technical discussions are probably where the >list can be most helpful. The technical analyses can help the lawyers to >understand what the questions are, or why distinctions drawn in the law >make no sense. A group of loopholes and technicalities might show the law >to be so nonsensical that it fails at its purpose of protecting copyright, >giving us a foothold for broader arguments of constitutionality. Plus, >courts don't like deciding constitutional issues -- if we can give the >courts alternative bases for a ruling and practical reasons behind the >principles, it will make them more comfortable with "the right ruling." > >As we're working on a FAQ, let's try to generate as many technical >questions and answers as we can. It's what we need as a base for the legal >arguments. > >--Wendy > >At 06:29 AM 2/24/00 -0600, tim@tneu.visi.com wrote: > >>The DVD is a program argument has merit, however, if this is what is >>argued, the statute retains it's teeth. It would be only a matter of time >>before we would be in the same position again with some other copy >>protection means... (Audio DVDs perhaps?) IMHO, it would be better to >>attack the principals of the law, rather than sneak through on essentially >>a technicality... >> >>Unless, of course, we argue that the distinction between "programs" and >>"content" itself is unwarranted... >> >>That is why the idea of persuing the right granted for "Home Viewing" >>sounds more appealing to me - this would set a legal precident that would >>guarentee rights to view encrypted content in one's home, no matter what >>the MPAA does. >> >>The "Authority" argument and the existance of public domain content on >>DVDs are also IMHO "good" arguments because they both focus on the >>uncostitutionality of the law, rather than on how the law is worded. >> >>Just my $.02... >>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you >> / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." >> / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA >>/ <_/ / / < / (_> > >wendy@seltzer.com || wseltzer@kramerlevin.com >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:31:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02604 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:31:40 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02598 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:31:38 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04262 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:30:38 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:30:37 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000224133037.H28173@nacs.net> References: <20000224052414.24656.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000224104017.Q23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000224104017.Q23265@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:40:17AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:24:14PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > Turing completeness is a property of languages, not programs. All > > instructions are translated into assembly before they are executed. > > Assembly is turing complete, (proof left to reader). Therefore all > > instruction sets that run on a computer would meet the definition of a > > program based on this. > > You're correct, of course; assembly (i.e. binary) is by definition > Turing Complete. It can't *not* be Turing Complete. > > But is a flat ASCII text file? As someone else pointed out here, you > can take the contents of a flat ASCII text file and tell your computer > to execute that data as a stream of CPU opcodes. Of course, it won't > work, but at the point of execution it is being represented as a Turing > Complete language and could therefore be called a program. Does this > actually make it so? > This is, I assume, why Canadian law defines a program as a set of instructions with a *definite outcome* (paraphrased, I don't remember the exact wording offhand); however, there are badly written programs... should a buggy program then not constitute a program and therefore be exempt from reverse engineering? Certainly not, as you need to fix the bugs! I don't think this is resolvable under law without bringing a judgement call into it or "intent". My pet theory is that "intent" shouldn't apply to programs since any evidence of "intent" is, by definition, removed from the program along with the program's expressiveness by the act of compiling it. That and the fact that I've used *many* *many* programs for purposes other than what they were intended for - common practice in CS. It is also, by definition, a "hack". (Hmm, strangely enough, the jargon file seems to have a bad definition of hack! I would say "a creative and true but unorthodox solution") > > > I have never seen anybody outside of this list tack 'Turing > > Completeness' into a definition of a program. I think the definition > > that I've seen the most is something like: 'A program is a collection > > of commands and data that produce predicatble results when executed on > > a computer'. > > I've seen that definition too. And it makes a great definition for a high > school computer science teacher when teaching computer literacy. The question > is, does it make a good legal definition, or do we want something more precise? > > > > I much prefer the object oriented philosophy: 'Everything is an > > object'. Objects have methods and state. Programs are objects, a > > methods is an objects, state is an object. > > You might as well fall back on the Turing concept that "all data is > program, all program is data" and declare any stream of 1's and 0's as > a program. It leaves too much room open to rationalization, because > conceptually you can argue that *anything* is a program, which defeats > the whole purpose of defining something legally. If we want to argue > based on the definition of "program", we should be able to clearly > define what structured data forms do not qualify. Yes. And by reason of "the courts are not well informed enough nor care to impose judgement calls on the technology industry", it should be a definition in which little or no "judgement call" is necessary. With Turing Completeness, not only can it be demonstrated, but it has a precise enough definition that an analysis paper quite clearly prove or disprove each point of the Turing Completeness test with little room for argument. Add to that the fact that it is widely recognized, and written by someone widely called "the father of the computer", and you have a very useful and credible definition. > > Imagine the difference between music and language. They are both > structured sound, and a musician may argue that music communicates in > the same way language does. The musician, unfortunately, is a partial > source. The fact remains that true language has the ability to convey > specialized information in a way music cannot. There's a line. > > If we want to draw a line here, then I maintain that the Turing > Completeness of the underlying structure (i.e., the language) is an > excellent way of doing that from an engineering standpoint. From this > POV, MPEG-2 would not be a program, because the underlying structure > is not a Turing Complete language. > > If we don't want to draw a line here, we shouldn't be mucking about > with definitions for "program". True. We haven't really decided whether it's best to argue that it is a program or that the differentiation between program and media is too indistinct and in flux enough that the law should not distinguish. While I recognize that this is a bad law, if we are to attack the law, I think there are other ways to do so. On the other hand, I don't know whether the lawyers think the defendents and/or this *particular* case is a liability, so that the law should later be challenged. In the second case, it still benefits us to have a hard, no-BS definition of `program' on the record. Couple questions: 1) Are the programming elements part of the encrypted DVD stream? 2) Can they be removed from the stream and the player still function? > > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:33:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02987 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:33:15 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA02984 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:33:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 26547 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 18:33:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224183346.26546.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:33:46 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:33:46 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > But is a flat ASCII text file? As someone else pointed out here, you > can take the contents of a flat ASCII text file and tell your computer > to execute that data as a stream of CPU opcodes. Of course, it won't > work, but at the point of execution it is being represented as a > Turing Complete language and could therefore be called a program. > Does this actually make it so? What do you mean "it won't work". It does what it is supposed to, namely crash quickly. My thesis throughout is that the difference between data and program is illusory. > I've seen that definition too. And it makes a great definition for a > high school computer science teacher when teaching computer literacy. > The question is, does it make a good legal definition, or do we want > something more precise? I think an easily defendable common-sense definition is a good one for the law to use. A good definition results in an alignment with common sense and an easy decision process to test whether any given example fits the definition or not. > You might as well fall back on the Turing concept that "all data is > program, all program is data" and declare any stream of 1's and 0's > as a program. It leaves too much room open to rationalization, because > conceptually you can argue that *anything* is a program, which > defeats the whole purpose of defining something legally. If we want to > argue based on the definition of "program", we should be able to clearly > define what structured data forms do not qualify. Well, an analog signal like an FM broadcast is not a program, even under this definition. I think the answer is that the one's and zero's are a "program" in the context of execution on a computer. A text file of, Shakespear's Hamlet is part of a program when it is used during execution, for example when pulled up in 'vi'. When "it is just sitting there" it's not part of a program. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:39:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA03966 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:39:11 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA03963 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:39:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 24670 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 18:35:12 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 18:35:12 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18828; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:39:43 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:39:43 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241839.KAA18828@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Johansen and Fawcus Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth David Schoen wrote: >Rares Marian writes: > >> Now we talked about decryption in DeCSS. Guess what LiViD does count as an emulator given the revelation of the DVD as a console. As a result we could arfue that DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD which is a win for us. > >Except that LiViD doesn't contain DeCSS. DeCSS is a separate program which >does not run on Linux. To recompile is trivial. It runs on Linux also. >I think LiViD's CSS code is based only on the stuff from Derek Fawcus (but >I'm not sure); I don't know where he got his information about CSS, but at >the very least it's a fresh implementation. Interestingly, copyleft.net's >t-shirts contain css-auth code from Fawcus, not DeCSS code from Jon >Johansen. So who are we fighting for then? LiViD or DeCSS? Oh brother this is getting ridiculous. Who the fsck is MPAA suing? Either way DeCSS is still an integral part of a LiViD style system. It's in the dvd specs Production tools need to include CSS tools to be useful. >Remember that DeCSS is much less efficient than the techniques Frank >Stevenson found. I'd imagine that those techniques or refinements of them >would be the basis for any future implementation of a CSS crack, at least >going on technical merit rather than legal concerns. Efficiency is irrelevant. :) >-- >Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I >Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will >down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:43:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA04607 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:43:03 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA04604 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:43:00 -0500 Received: (qmail 9862 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 18:43:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224184338.9861.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:43:38 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:43:38 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(f) - Circles, Circles, Spinning Around... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Steven Barker wrote: > Section (f)(1) would allow you to break any encryption on the *word > processing program* in order to interoperate with it's output, but you > could not break the encryption on the *data* just so another program > can read it. This assumes a fairly narrow definition of "program" > just to be safe. Umm, (f)(1) grants an exception to (a)(1) which isn't in effect yet and isn't the origin of this case. This case is about an (a)(2) claim. There is an exception to (a)(2) in (f)(2) and (f)(3) that you didn't speak to. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:53:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA08134 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:53:54 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08126 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:53:51 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04290 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:52:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:52:59 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000224135259.I28173@nacs.net> References: <20000224052414.24656.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000224104017.Q23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224092146.A1062@localhost> <20000224131252.T23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000224131252.T23265@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:12:52PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > But is a flat ASCII text file? As someone else pointed out here, you > > > can take the contents of a flat ASCII text file and tell your computer > > > to execute that data as a stream of CPU opcodes. Of course, it won't > > > work, but at the point of execution it is being represented as a Turing > > > Complete language and could therefore be called a program. Does this > > > actually make it so? > > > > There is problem with this argument. The mapping between ASCII bytes and > > opcodes is not a property of ASCII, but rather a property of the CPU you > > are jammed the bytes into. ASCII is not a computer language. > > This was my point. The argument was that any list of instructions, TC or not, > was reconcilable to assembly opcodes, which are TC, so that any instruction list > could be shown to be TC. I don't agree with this for the reason you just > stated. My agreement above was to the fact that assembly itself was TC. > > If you take a non-TC data formatting language (ASCII, DBase .DBF, MPEG-2, etc.) > and add extra architecture (which you would have to do) in order to make it > reconcilable to a TC programming language, this does not mean that the original > data is now Turing Complete. If this were the case, ASCII could be claimed to > be a Turing Complete language. Yes, but if you had a language specification such as FoxPro (with it's screen code), where the code must be stored in DBF format to be run, the resulting format is TC (assuming FoxPro is TC, which it is...) Similarly C is quite certainly TC, and I believe the ANSI spec says that C programs must be in ASCII. Some minor points need to be cleared up, but this is what I expect to find that DVD "content" is... a programming language particularly adept at video and audio manipulation (with what has traditionally been called "content" embedded within the program). A note: Someone else made the note that the phrase "deterministic" should be used in the definition of a program. The outcome of a file of arbitrary data being run by (at least a modern) CPU is always determinate. All "protected-mode" processors can cause an 'unrecognized instruction' exception, a 'bad data' exception, or various others so that there is no state of the machine for which the result of the next piece of data is indeterminate. If you think about it, Linux kernel developers have in their battery a large assortment of code snippets and programs which do things such as spin out of control, produce core dumps, corrupt file systems, cause kernel panics and system hangs and protection faults. Wow! Getting into some heavy CS here! To think I never went to college... (oh, yeah, pardon speling and punctuation, -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice P.S. I'm not sure that this means "deterministic" shouldn't be used, just somthing to considered. I'm pretty sure that Turing Completeness implies a determinate result, tho. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 13:58:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10562 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:58:27 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA10552 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:58:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 9800 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 18:59:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224185907.9799.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:59:07 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:59:07 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Fair use research To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Steven Barker wrote: > Hey, I decided to start looking for past cases that might give us an > idea on how fair use (or other constitutional arguments) might help us in > invalidating 1201. In a brief search, I've come up with > fairuse.stanford.edu/primary/ which has a number of links to the > constituional passages, specific laws, and judgements that help define > fair use. There is a very good summary of all of the Supreme Court's interpretations of the copyright clause that I found at the openlaw/cyberlaw harvard sites. Start reading the following at page 32: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/OuEldred.pdf There is other stuff at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/legal.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 14:02:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA12839 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:02:04 -0500 Received: from dial101.roadrunner.com (dial101.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.101]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA12798 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:02:00 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial101.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA02946 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:05:28 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:05:27 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries Message-ID: <20000224120526.A2943@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu - What is a Turing machine? - Why should I care about Turing machine? - What does it mean for a language to be Turing complete? - Is there any difference between Turing complete, equivalent, etc.? - Are all useful computer languages Turing complete? - What are some Turing complete languages? - What are some non-complete languages? - What do these languages get use for? - Can a program be Turing complete? - How is a DVD structured? - What is the set of commands on a DVD? - What kind of programs could I write using the instructions on a DVD? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 14:14:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17000 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:14:46 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA16971 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:14:42 -0500 Received: (qmail 12311 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 19:15:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224191522.12309.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:15:22 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:15:22 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Technical arguments (was: DVD is a program :) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Rares Marian wrote: > We need two FAQs One for Section 17/Wire we here? sort of > information and a huge FAQ on what DVD is. Dana convinced me DVD > is software, now I'm arguing that it is a console. The DVD FAQ already exists:http://www.dvddemystified.com/ Let's not reinvent the wheel. Of course the DVD FAQ is a living document, so feel free to contribute to it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 14:28:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20245 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:28:24 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA20242 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:28:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 14858 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 19:28:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224192857.14857.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:28:57 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:28:57 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > - What is a Turing machine? > - Why should I care about Turing machine? > - What does it mean for a language to be Turing complete? > - Is there any difference between Turing complete, equivalent, etc.? > - Are all useful computer languages Turing complete? > - What are some Turing complete languages? > - What are some non-complete languages? > - What do these languages get use for? > - Can a program be Turing complete? Why are people obsessed with this Turing completeness stuff? Even if we can define a "program" somehow using this concept, I think the judge would ignore it as too geeky of a definition. Furthermore, I think turing completeness is a property of a language, not of a program. Saying a program is something written in a Turing Complete language makes you look outside the thing itself to decide if it's a program and could lead to difficult or unsolved mathematical questions and ambiguous factual questions since many programs are coded using multiple langauges. Every program is translated into assembly, so all executables are programs. Can we get off of this Turing Completeness kick? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 14:31:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20705 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:31:22 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20702 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:31:19 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04566 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:30:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:30:24 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries Message-ID: <20000224143024.J28173@nacs.net> References: <20000224120526.A2943@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000224120526.A2943@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:05:27PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > - What is a Turing machine? > - Why should I care about Turing machine? > - What does it mean for a language to be Turing complete? > - Is there any difference between Turing complete, equivalent, etc.? > - Are all useful computer languages Turing complete? > - What are some Turing complete languages? > - What are some non-complete languages? > - What do these languages get use for? > - Can a program be Turing complete? I'll write and submit a separate sub-FAQ describing all this in detail, although I might not get to it until Sunday. I also have to clarify one point of my own understanding of Turing Completeness (completeness being required only for a *non-halting* Turing machine vs. "determinate" language of Canadian Law in defining "program" - yes I agree, but I don't know *why* I agree...). This might be more essay form then FAQ form, and might be titled something like "Proposal of a Practical Definition of a Computer Program for Law" ;) Public input and revision and open process still respected, of course. I intend to do some library-research as well, as the web resources on Turing are somewhat limited (can you imagine?) > > - How is a DVD structured? > - What is the set of commands on a DVD? > - What kind of programs could I write using the instructions on a DVD? I'll leave these for someone else. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 14:36:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA21730 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:36:28 -0500 Received: from dial212.roadrunner.com (dial212.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.212]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA21726 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:36:19 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial212.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03408 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:39:45 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:39:43 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries Message-ID: <20000224123943.A3390@localhost> References: <20000224192857.14857.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224192857.14857.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:28:57AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:28:57AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > > - What is a Turing machine? > > - Why should I care about Turing machine? > > - What does it mean for a language to be Turing complete? > > - Is there any difference between Turing complete, equivalent, etc.? > > - Are all useful computer languages Turing complete? > > - What are some Turing complete languages? > > - What are some non-complete languages? > > - What do these languages get use for? > > - Can a program be Turing complete? > > Why are people obsessed with this Turing completeness stuff? Even if we > can define a "program" somehow using this concept, I think the judge > would ignore it as too geeky of a definition. The question is whether the lawyers will find it useful, not the judge. The judge aint gonna read the faq. I understood your last post. I'm not going to write a book. I'm going to find URLs, some of which are already published here. > > Furthermore, I think turing completeness is a property of a language, > not of a program. Saying a program is something written in a Turing I don't think *I* said anything to disagree with this. > Can we get off of this Turing Completeness kick? Chill. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 14:47:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA23776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:47:07 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA23772 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:47:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 9666 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 19:47:48 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224194748.9665.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:47:48 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:47:48 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > > Can we get off of this Turing Completeness kick? > Chill. I'm just trying to say I think we've gone down a rat-hole that doesn't lead anywhere. It's interesting computer science, but I don't think it's germane. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 14:48:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA24092 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:48:47 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA24088 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:48:45 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id LAA13092 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:48:17 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:48:17 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Johansen and Fawcus Message-ID: <20000224114817.K9666@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200002241839.KAA18828@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200002241839.KAA18828@ns1.filetron.com>; from rmarian@linuxstart.com on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:39:43AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian writes: > Seth David Schoen wrote: > >Rares Marian writes: > > > >> Now we talked about decryption in DeCSS. Guess what LiViD does count as an emulator given the revelation of the DVD as a console. As a result we could arfue that DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD which is a win for us. > > > >Except that LiViD doesn't contain DeCSS. DeCSS is a separate program which > >does not run on Linux. > > To recompile is trivial. It runs on Linux also. Has anyone built DeCSS on Linux? (I have not tried.) > >I think LiViD's CSS code is based only on the stuff from Derek Fawcus (but > >I'm not sure); I don't know where he got his information about CSS, but at > >the very least it's a fresh implementation. Interestingly, copyleft.net's > >t-shirts contain css-auth code from Fawcus, not DeCSS code from Jon > >Johansen. > > So who are we fighting for then? LiViD or DeCSS? Oh brother this is getting ridiculous. Who the fsck is MPAA suing? Either way DeCSS is still an integral part of a LiViD style system. It's in the dvd specs Production tools need to include CSS tools to be useful. I was going to ask the same question. I believe Matthew Pavlovich is a named defendant in the California trade secret case, but LiViD and css-auth are nowhere mentioned in any complaint! Still, some people have suggested that LiViD developers would be sued next. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 14:51:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA24780 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:51:36 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA24777 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:51:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 31080 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 19:47:41 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 19:47:41 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03720; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:52:15 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:52:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200002241952.LAA03720@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jason M. Felice wrote: >On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:40:17AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >While I recognize that this is a bad law, if we are to attack the law, I think >there are other ways to do so. On the other hand, I don't know whether the >lawyers think the defendents and/or this *particular* case is a liability, so >that the law should later be challenged. In the second case, it still benefits >us to have a hard, no-BS definition of `program' on the record. That's one. >Couple questions: >1) Are the programming elements part of the encrypted DVD stream? Two, yes. DVD is a console. >2) Can they be removed from the stream and the player still function? No. It's extremely intertwined. Basically the movies we see on DVD are a subset of its true capabilities as is DVD Audio which is a bogus format as a result of being a subset. Add a wearable Linux powered computer and you have a true virtual reality MUD. Not just the 3-D. See my 20+ posts on this. Now I'm going to take a break. Tomorrow I'll have a list of things a game console does and compare it to what a dvd does. >> >> >> Rob Warren >> greslin@linuxpower.org >> www.iag.net/~aleris > > >-Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 14:55:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA25336 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:55:42 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA25333 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:55:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 25392 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 20:00:21 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:00:21 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Technical arguments (was: DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000224150021.W23265@linuxpower.org> References: <200002241830.KAA16572@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002241830.KAA16572@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:30:07AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:30:07AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > We need two FAQs One for Section 17/Wire we here? sort of information > and a huge FAQ on what DVD is. Dana convinced me DVD is software, now I'm arguing that it is a console. Eh, one thing at a time. :) If the tech side of the FAQ outgrows one file, then we can split it up. In the meantime, I've put up a very, very rough draft of the FAQ. It's incomplete, probably inaccurate and badly ordered, but it's there. http://www.iag.net/~aleris/dvdfaq.txt Actually, it seems that the FAQ at www.dvddemystified.com does the job nicely. > > Also, I'm not satisfied w/ just letting Johansen off the hook. One of the paragraphs (using the word loosely) in Sec;. 17 is not yet in effect. Title 17. Chapter 12, Section 1201. :) And the current case has nothing to do with Johansen. That's between him and the Norwegian authorities. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:02:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA26651 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:02:42 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA26630 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:02:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 32313 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 19:58:46 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 19:58:46 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA05068; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:03:19 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:03:19 -0800 Message-Id: <200002242003.MAA05068@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD FAQ: Visibility is crucial sheesh. Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > >--- Rares Marian wrote: >> We need two FAQs One for Section 17/Wire we here? sort of >> information and a huge FAQ on what DVD is. Dana convinced me DVD >> is software, now I'm arguing that it is a console. > >The DVD FAQ already exists:http://www.dvddemystified.com/ > >Let's not reinvent the wheel. Of course the DVD FAQ is a living >document, so feel free to contribute to it. Dude when John Q Reporter comes to our site they should see something collected and relevant to our case otherwise you're arguing that we're reinventing trhe wheel by making the case FAQ. The mailing list is a living document too :) Rares _________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:05:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA27387 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:05:12 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA27384 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:05:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 25439 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 20:09:57 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:09:57 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Johansen and Fawcus Message-ID: <20000224150957.X23265@linuxpower.org> References: <200002241839.KAA18828@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002241839.KAA18828@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:39:43AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:39:43AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Seth David Schoen wrote: > >Rares Marian writes: > > > >> Now we talked about decryption in DeCSS. Guess what LiViD does count as an emulator given the revelation of the DVD as a console. As a result we could arfue that DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD which is a win for us. > > > >Except that LiViD doesn't contain DeCSS. DeCSS is a separate program which > >does not run on Linux. > > To recompile is trivial. It runs on Linux also. I haven't looked over the DeCSS source, but I have looked over the css-auth stuff. At any rate, I strongly doubt that the DeCSS source requires only a trivial recompile to be runnable on Linux - at the very least, you'd have to change the calling code that builds the dialog box. You are perhaps confusing DeCSS with the css-auth program by Fawcus? > >I think LiViD's CSS code is based only on the stuff from Derek Fawcus (but > >I'm not sure); I don't know where he got his information about CSS, but at > >the very least it's a fresh implementation. Interestingly, copyleft.net's > >t-shirts contain css-auth code from Fawcus, not DeCSS code from Jon > >Johansen. > > So who are we fighting for then? LiViD or DeCSS? Oh brother this is getting ridiculous. Who the fsck is MPAA suing? Either way DeCSS is still an integral part of a LiViD style system. It's in the dvd specs Production tools need to include CSS tools to be useful. > Technically speaking, the MPAA is suing the proprietors and operators of www.2600.com. The basis on which their suit rests is that these individuals made available to the public a program called "DeCSS", which draws a box on the screen with two buttons. You press one button, you read the DVD. You press the other, you write unscrambled MPEG-2. The MPAA themselves may not be aware that the same method is implemented in different programs; they seemed to show that in New York. But for now, they are making it relatively clear that their concern is over distribution of the DeCSS Windows binary. DeCSS itself has nothing to do directly with LiViD. The Linux video playback is based on css-auth, the code written by Derek Fawcus, based upon Frank Stevenson's whitepaper. Or so I understand. Details, yes. But important ones. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:14:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA29745 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:14:31 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA29742 for <"dvd-discuss@"@eon.law.harvard.edu>; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:14:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 929 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 20:10:35 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 20:10:35 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06168; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:15:10 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:15:10 -0800 Message-Id: <200002242015.MAA06168@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Presentation (was Technical arguments) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:30:07AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >> We need two FAQs One for Section 17/Wire we here? sort of information >> and a huge FAQ on what DVD is. Dana convinced me DVD is software, now I'm arguing that it is a console. > >Eh, one thing at a time. :) If the tech side of the FAQ outgrows one file, then we >can split it up. In the meantime, I've put up a very, very rough draft of the FAQ. >It's incomplete, probably inaccurate and badly ordered, but it's there. > >http://www.iag.net/~aleris/dvdfaq.txt > >Actually, it seems that the FAQ at www.dvddemystified.com does the job nicely. Yes, but the problem is psychologically our general audience thinks in sound bites. We need some of the tech facts to be as prominent as possible. Otherwise we're screaming in a crowd. Links count only as auxilliary references. We need something that's right in your face. Not several scrolls down. Not behind a link to link to another document. Sorry for the rant, but first public impression is key to making this work. > >> >> Also, I'm not satisfied w/ just letting Johansen off the hook. One of the paragraphs (using the word loosely) in Sec;. 17 is not yet in effect. > >Title 17. Chapter 12, Section 1201. :) Thanks :) >And the current case has nothing to do with Johansen. That's between him and the Norwegian >authorities. Okay, then who is it exactly? I know I missed something stupid and obvious but I'm all over the place as it is anyway. > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:20:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA31087 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:20:25 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA31083 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:20:24 -0500 Received: (qmail 1586 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 20:16:30 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 20:16:30 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06647; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:21:04 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:21:04 -0800 Message-Id: <200002242021.MAA06647@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Tick tock... Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth David Schoen wrote: >Rares Marian writes: > >> >I think LiViD's CSS code is based only on the stuff from Derek Fawcus (but >> >I'm not sure); I don't know where he got his information about CSS, but at >> >the very least it's a fresh implementation. Interestingly, copyleft.net's >> >t-shirts contain css-auth code from Fawcus, not DeCSS code from Jon >> >Johansen. >> >> So who are we fighting for then? LiViD or DeCSS? Oh brother this is getting ridiculous. Who the fsck is MPAA suing? Either way DeCSS is still an integral part of a LiViD style system. It's in the dvd specs Production tools need to include CSS tools to be useful. > >I was going to ask the same question. > >I believe Matthew Pavlovich is a named defendant in the California trade >secret case, but LiViD and css-auth are nowhere mentioned in any complaint! > >Still, some people have suggested that LiViD developers would be sued next. Time to put a stop to that. Realize this case is not isolated. There's a huge domino effect scheduled soon. We need to make sure it falls in the right direction, otherwise this is going to make our hair turn gray by next XMAS. >-- >Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I >Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will >down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:26:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA32660 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:26:59 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA32655 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:26:57 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9F1F776F5; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:28:05 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:25:07 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002241739.JAA05280@ns1.filetron.com> In-Reply-To: <200002241739.JAA05280@ns1.filetron.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022414280500.05457@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: > Russell Miller wrote: > >I'd have to agree with you and this is another thing that's bothering me. > > > >The law has to be essentially destroyed. A technicality won't significantly > >help our cause in the long run. > > No technicality anymore. For the 15th time DVD is a console, LiViD is an > emulator, and DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD. But the law needs to be > ripped to shreds as it stands. Perhaps openlaw.org can contact the senators > who tried to keep freedom safe when they amended Section 17 originally. I'm > not kidding. If I had a better job, I'd be talking to them myself. Um, there is a serious flaw in this. DeCSS is a Windows executable. It would take a lot of effort to persuade the judge that a Windows program is needed to make a Linux program work. It might be possible, but it will be one hell of a struggle. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu You will have a long and unpleasant discussion with your supervisor. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:29:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA00737 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:29:07 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA00734 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:29:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 2659 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 20:25:12 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by 206.171.92.89 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 20:25:12 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07522; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:29:45 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:29:45 -0800 Message-Id: <200002242029.MAA07522@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Chill :) Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > >--- Paul Fenimore wrote: >> > Can we get off of this Turing Completeness kick? >> Chill. > >I'm just trying to say I think we've gone down a rat-hole that doesn't >lead anywhere. It's interesting computer science, but I don't think >it's germane. Point taken. It is germane however. Interoperability requires programs. Program needs to be defined. DVD is a console and the content on the disc is a program just like any playstation game. If one of those statements is too vague we have no argument. See my previous comments on DVD is a program (I should have said DVD content is a program). ________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:31:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01394 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:31:37 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA01391 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:31:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 25449 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 20:29:39 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:29:39 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000224152939.Y23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000224052414.24656.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000224104017.Q23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224092146.A1062@localhost> <20000224131252.T23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224135259.I28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224135259.I28173@nacs.net>; from Jason M. Felice on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:52:59PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:52:59PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:12:52PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > If you take a non-TC data formatting language (ASCII, DBase .DBF, MPEG-2, etc.) > > and add extra architecture (which you would have to do) in order to make it > > reconcilable to a TC programming language, this does not mean that the original > > data is now Turing Complete. If this were the case, ASCII could be claimed to > > be a Turing Complete language. > > Yes, but if you had a language specification such as FoxPro (with it's screen > code), where the code must be stored in DBF format to be run, the resulting > format is TC (assuming FoxPro is TC, which it is...) I spent a number of years doing professional programming in Foxpro in the aerospace sector. For purposes of discussion, the below is meant to only apply to Foxpro 2.x: For those of you out there who have no idea about this - Foxpro is a DBase clone, currently owned by Microsoft, that has been around for years. Part of the system is screen and form construction; different screen objects can have embedded source code to be executed when the control is used. These source code fragments are stored in what are called "Memo" fields, which are open text pages. The entire screen layout is stored in a Foxpro .DBF file, structurally identical to the database files used to store normal data. Personally, I see this as no different from C source being stored in ASCII text. You have a TC language being contained in a non-TC data formatting specification. That doesn't make the data format itself TC. Or put more succinctly, if you videotaped pages of C source and then converted that video into MPEG, the resulting MPEG file is not Turing Complete. It is still a non-TC data format. > A note: Someone else made the note that the phrase "deterministic" should > be used in the definition of a program. The outcome of a file of arbitrary > data being run by (at least a modern) CPU is always determinate. All > "protected-mode" processors can cause an 'unrecognized instruction' exception, > a 'bad data' exception, or various others so that there is no state of the > machine for which the result of the next piece of data is indeterminate. I think the point made was to use the word "deterministic" rather than the word "predictable". I see it as a valid point. > P.S. I'm not sure that this means "deterministic" shouldn't be used, just > somthing to considered. I'm pretty sure that Turing Completeness implies > a determinate result, tho. If I recall correctly, TC demands it. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:38:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03038 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:38:13 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA03035 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:38:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 25460 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 20:42:54 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:42:53 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries Message-ID: <20000224154253.Z23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000224192857.14857.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> <20000224123943.A3390@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224123943.A3390@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:39:43PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:39:43PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:28:57AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > Why are people obsessed with this Turing completeness stuff? Even if we > > can define a "program" somehow using this concept, I think the judge > > would ignore it as too geeky of a definition. (to Bryan) You seem to be equating "geeky" (whatever that means) to being esoteric and wordplay. It isn't. Turing Completeness is an accepted engineering term in the computer sciences; it wouldn't be hard at all to find expert witnesses to support this. > The question is whether the lawyers will find it useful, not the judge. > The judge aint gonna read the faq. > > I understood your last post. I'm not going to write a book. I'm going to find > URLs, some of which are already published here. > > > > > Furthermore, I think turing completeness is a property of a language, > > not of a program. Saying a program is something written in a Turing > > I don't think *I* said anything to disagree with this. I'm pretty sure neither did I. "Programs" themselves can't necessarily be TC, because to be TC would be to exhibit all the properties of a Turing Machine. I think the only program that could do that would be a Turing Machine simulator. But for purposes of trying to define "program", the Turing Completeness of the language in which it is "written" defines the potential abilities of the "program". It also is a clear, accepted demarcation line between a bonafide programming language and a "markup language" such as HTML or simply a very complicated data storage format. It actually is a quite reasonable definition of "program". > > > Can we get off of this Turing Completeness kick? Bryan, if you've got a better place to draw the line between programs and non-programs (i.e., structured data), we're all ears. The best you've proposed is a fuzzy definition that could conceivably include any type of data format known to man, and then become grumpy when people point it out. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:41:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03653 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:41:25 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA03650 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:41:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 25466 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 20:46:09 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:46:09 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAQ Goodness Message-ID: <20000224154609.A23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223005341.P20634@linuxpower.org> <20000223143653.A23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000223143653.A23265@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:36:53PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Team - I've got a very, very rough draft of an FAQ online. It's in plaintext, where it will remain until we're comfortable enough with it to go official. It's also very incomplete, badly ordered and probably wildly inaccurate. On top of everything else, I still don't have bios for half the people listed as contributors. If you're listed (or wish to be listed) and I still don't have a bio line for you yet, please drop me an email and let me know a little bit about you. The FAQ is located at: www.iag.net/~aleris/dvdfaq.txt Thanks, Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:52:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05906 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:52:53 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA05903 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:52:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 25487 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 20:57:37 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:57:37 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000224155737.C23265@linuxpower.org> References: <200002241952.LAA03720@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002241952.LAA03720@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:52:15AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:52:15AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Jason M. Felice wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:40:17AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >While I recognize that this is a bad law, if we are to attack the law, I think > >there are other ways to do so. On the other hand, I don't know whether the > >lawyers think the defendents and/or this *particular* case is a liability, so > >that the law should later be challenged. In the second case, it still benefits > >us to have a hard, no-BS definition of `program' on the record. Attribution breach, captain! I didn't write the above. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 15:53:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA06136 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:53:55 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA06105 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:53:53 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA25232 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:54:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B59A50.4E289FE7@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:53:36 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Presentation (was Technical arguments) References: <200002242015.MAA06168@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:30:07AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > >> We need two FAQs One for Section 17/Wire we here? sort of information > >> and a huge FAQ on what DVD is. Dana convinced me DVD is software, now I'm arguing that it is a console. > > > >Eh, one thing at a time. :) If the tech side of the FAQ outgrows one file, then we > >can split it up. In the meantime, I've put up a very, very rough draft of the FAQ. > >It's incomplete, probably inaccurate and badly ordered, but it's there. > > > >http://www.iag.net/~aleris/dvdfaq.txt > > > >Actually, it seems that the FAQ at www.dvddemystified.com does the job nicely. > > Yes, but the problem is psychologically our general audience thinks in sound bites. We need some of the tech facts to be as prominent as possible. Otherwise we're screaming in a crowd. Links count only as auxilliary references. We need something that's right in your face. Not several scrolls down. Not behind a link to link to another document. Suggestion. Don't just link to Jim Taylor's FAQ in its entirety (thought you should do that too). Link to the relevant sections of Jim's FAQ where needed within the DVDopenlaw FAQ, rather than cite the entire FAQ as supporting material and make people dig for the piece you want. Jim won't mind - or I could ask him, if you think you need permission. Jim's FAQ is the best organized, indexed, and maintained one I've ever seen, but then he's only been compiling it since sometime in 1996 (to the best of my recollection). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 16:01:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA08368 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:01:27 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA08364 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:01:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 25540 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 21:06:08 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:06:08 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Presentation (was Technical arguments) Message-ID: <20000224160608.D23265@linuxpower.org> References: <200002242015.MAA06168@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002242015.MAA06168@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:15:10PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:15:10PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > >And the current case has nothing to do with Johansen. That's between him and the Norwegian > >authorities. > > Okay, then who is it exactly? I know I missed something stupid and obvious but I'm all over the place as it is anyway. > Aren't we all. :) The court documents of the New York DMCA case state the defendents as: Shawn C. Reimerdes Eric Corley (a.k.a. "Emmanuel Goldstein" Roman Kazan They currently run the 2600 website at www.2600.com. Jon's only relevance to this case is on a moral level and possibly as an example of how far the MPAA is willing to go to make this problem go away. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 16:08:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11145 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:08:27 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11142 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:08:26 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id BBA8376F5; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:09:34 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:56:17 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000224052414.24656.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000224092146.A1062@localhost> <20000224131252.T23265@linuxpower.org> In-Reply-To: <20000224131252.T23265@linuxpower.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022415093401.05457@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > There is problem with this argument. The mapping between ASCII bytes and > > opcodes is not a property of ASCII, but rather a property of the CPU you > > are jammed the bytes into. ASCII is not a computer language. > > This was my point. The argument was that any list of instructions, TC or not, > was reconcilable to assembly opcodes, which are TC, so that any instruction list > could be shown to be TC. I don't agree with this for the reason you just > stated. My agreement above was to the fact that assembly itself was TC. > > If you take a non-TC data formatting language (ASCII, DBase .DBF, MPEG-2, etc.) > and add extra architecture (which you would have to do) in order to make it > reconcilable to a TC programming language, this does not mean that the original > data is now Turing Complete. If this were the case, ASCII could be claimed to > be a Turing Complete language. I would disagree. I would think that the ASCII is no longer ASCII, it is part of the new language you are wrapping it in. When that part of the code is evaluated however, it is translated back to ASCII by whatever program it is a part of. I can't think of any good low level example of this, but for a less good one, take a string in BASIC ("hello world"). When the code is run by the interpreter the letters are not read as ASCII, they are read as a part of the BASIC program. It is the BASIC language that tells the interpreter that what is between the ""s should be considered ASCII text when it is used by the program. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu You will have a long and unpleasant discussion with your supervisor. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 16:12:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA12820 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:12:56 -0500 Received: from dial131.roadrunner.com (dial131.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.131]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA12816 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:12:53 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial131.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA04628 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:16:29 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:16:28 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries Message-ID: <20000224141628.A4433@localhost> References: <20000224194748.9665.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224194748.9665.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:47:48AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think the lawyers are going to have to know this much of the fundamentals if they are going to talk about why DVD content is a program. I grant you that people may have honest differences on this subject. If you can do it without TC, I've got no problem with your approach. Here's the situation I'm thinking of: "The plaintiffs say you're clouding the issue by talking about programs, when all they are trying to do is use DVDs to present content. They point out that web pages need programs external to the content to make them active and that the situation here is basically the same." Sure, the plaintiff would be playing fast and loose at this point, but I think the lawyers will have an easier time shreading this kind of non-sense if they know what TC is. Maybe my opinion is clouded by the fact that this is the way I arrived at "DVD content is a console". I'm open to the possibility that it doesn't have to be done with TC. I'm not trying to turn this into a science project. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 16:21:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA16049 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:21:47 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA15972 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:21:24 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05106 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:20:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:20:26 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries Message-ID: <20000224162026.L28173@nacs.net> References: <20000224192857.14857.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000224192857.14857.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:28:57AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > > - What is a Turing machine? > > - Why should I care about Turing machine? > > - What does it mean for a language to be Turing complete? > > - Is there any difference between Turing complete, equivalent, etc.? > > - Are all useful computer languages Turing complete? > > - What are some Turing complete languages? > > - What are some non-complete languages? > > - What do these languages get use for? > > - Can a program be Turing complete? > > Why are people obsessed with this Turing completeness stuff? Even if we > can define a "program" somehow using this concept, I think the judge > would ignore it as too geeky of a definition. It's an accurate definition which: 1) Can be demonstrated precisely in court as applying or not applying. 2) Accepts most (if not all) of what people intuitively consider a program. 3) Rejects most (if not all) of what people intuitively consider a program. 4) Carries a lot of weight within CS. In summary, it can be used to determine whether something is a program a *lot* more practically than any of the current legal definitions which I have seen so far. The lawyers certainly don't have to present this to the judge, but we need a practical, demonstrable legal definition of a program to go further, if not for this case, then for the next. > > Furthermore, I think turing completeness is a property of a language, > not of a program. Saying a program is something written in a Turing > Complete language makes you look outside the thing itself to decide if > it's a program ... which is necessary in this case as whether something is a program or data is solely a matter of context ... > and could lead to difficult or unsolved mathematical > questions and ambiguous factual questions since many programs are coded > using multiple langauges. Every program is translated into assembly, so > all executables are programs. First of all, I assume you mean machine language and not assembly. Borland C compilers do not translate to assembly, (or at least earlier versions didn't), although gcc does. Further, the following languages are not translated into machine language: 1) Perl 2) Python 3) Tcl 4) Java (not a *real* machine language). 5) Scheme 6) m4 7) Visual Basic (even when compiled to EXE it's not) If you were to broaden that from 'machine language' to 'object code' aka 'byte code', you can accept Perl and Java as languages (for sake of argument Python - I'm not sure), leaving: 1) Scheme 2) Tcl 3) m4 I contend that Tcl is a programming language, that works in Tcl should be reverse engineerable because they may have bugs and may not properly interoperate. Python I'm not so sure about ;-) (m4 is an excercise left to the reader, and quite some excercise you would get...) Now at this point, I can argue opinions about whether or not something is machine language or object code or internal representation or whatever you might be calling it, and you have no method of refuting me. Name an accurate definition of "Object Code" which is no different from a definition of "Program". You can't do it, you're back to step one. With no reasonable, accepted definition of program, the DVDCCA will go "Look judge, it's not a program! You can look at it and hear it, duh!" or something along those lines. > > Can we get off of this Turing Completeness kick? > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 16:47:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA24532 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:47:44 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA24528 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:47:42 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA16249 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:48:17 -0600 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:48:17 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Presentation (was Technical arguments) Message-ID: <20000224154817.B16195@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200002242015.MAA06168@ns1.filetron.com> <20000224160608.D23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000224160608.D23265@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:06:08PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > The court documents of the New York DMCA case state the defendents as: > > Shawn C. Reimerdes > Eric Corley (a.k.a. "Emmanuel Goldstein" > Roman Kazan > > They currently run the 2600 website at www.2600.com. No, "they" don't. Corley aka Goldstein runs 2600. Reimerdes runs dvd-copy.com. Kazan runs krackdown.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 17:13:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA32539 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:13:50 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA32489 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:13:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 12595 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 22:09:50 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 22:09:50 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18102; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:14:24 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:14:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200002242214.OAA18102@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steven Barker wrote: >On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> > There is problem with this argument. The mapping between ASCII bytes and >> > opcodes is not a property of ASCII, but rather a property of the CPU you >> > are jammed the bytes into. ASCII is not a computer language. >> >> This was my point. The argument was that any list of instructions, TC or not, >> was reconcilable to assembly opcodes, which are TC, so that any instruction list >> could be shown to be TC. I don't agree with this for the reason you just >> stated. My agreement above was to the fact that assembly itself was TC. >> >> If you take a non-TC data formatting language (ASCII, DBase .DBF, MPEG-2, etc.) >> and add extra architecture (which you would have to do) in order to make it >> reconcilable to a TC programming language, this does not mean that the original >> data is now Turing Complete. If this were the case, ASCII could be claimed to >> be a Turing Complete language. ASCII isn't a language. I'm afraid though that your argument sounds a lot like you're arguing about a piece of paper a love note is written on instead of the msg. Incidentally HTML isn't written in ASCII. It's written in HTML. And it doesn't halt either (Blink tags, Image maps) or maybe I'm thinking of javascript. Bottomline is we need a #define for a program and TC sounds like it's good quite good as a start. Rares > >I would disagree. I would think that the ASCII is no longer ASCII, it is part >of the new language you are wrapping it in. When that part of the code is >evaluated however, it is translated back to ASCII by whatever program it is a >part of. I can't think of any good low level example of this, but for a less >good one, take a string in BASIC ("hello world"). When the code is run by the >interpreter the letters are not read as ASCII, they are read as a part of the >BASIC program. It is the BASIC language that tells the interpreter that what is >between the ""s should be considered ASCII text when it is used by the program. > >-- > Steven Barker > scbarker@uiuc.edu > >You will have a long and unpleasant discussion with your supervisor. ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 17:17:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02198 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:17:37 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA02195 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:17:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 25691 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 22:22:21 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:22:21 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Presentation (was Technical arguments) Message-ID: <20000224172221.J23265@linuxpower.org> References: <200002242015.MAA06168@ns1.filetron.com> <20000224160608.D23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224154817.B16195@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224154817.B16195@thud.reric.net>; from Eric Seppanen on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:48:17PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:48:17PM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:06:08PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > The court documents of the New York DMCA case state the defendents as: > > > > Shawn C. Reimerdes > > Eric Corley (a.k.a. "Emmanuel Goldstein" > > Roman Kazan > > > > They currently run the 2600 website at www.2600.com. > > No, "they" don't. Corley aka Goldstein runs 2600. > > Reimerdes runs dvd-copy.com. > > Kazan runs krackdown.com. > Point taken. Thanks. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 17:21:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03726 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:21:40 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA03723 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:21:37 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05474 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:20:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:20:35 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000224172035.M28173@nacs.net> References: <200002241739.JAA05280@ns1.filetron.com> <00022414280500.05457@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <00022414280500.05457@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:25:07PM -0600, Steven Barker wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: > > Russell Miller wrote: > > >I'd have to agree with you and this is another thing that's bothering me. > > > > > >The law has to be essentially destroyed. A technicality won't significantly > > >help our cause in the long run. > > > > No technicality anymore. For the 15th time DVD is a console, LiViD is an > > emulator, and DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD. But the law needs to be > > ripped to shreds as it stands. Perhaps openlaw.org can contact the senators > > who tried to keep freedom safe when they amended Section 17 originally. I'm > > not kidding. If I had a better job, I'd be talking to them myself. > > Um, there is a serious flaw in this. DeCSS is a Windows executable. It would > take a lot of effort to persuade the judge that a Windows program is needed to > make a Linux program work. It might be possible, but it will be one hell of a > struggle. It was a simple piece of the puzzle under development for Linux, which had no UFS support at the time (UFS is the DVD filesystem on which the .vob is stored). While kernel hackers implemented UFS, others wrote DeCSS in paralell. That's not difficult to convince the judge of, especially considering that we can easily convince the judge that DVD support is a work in progress and not even a release candidate yet, and only because of the development philosophy used is it available now. The program can be compiled for either platform without changes. Windows binaries are distributed because you have to pay $600 for a C compiler on Windows. I do the same thing with my Linux 5250 emulator (although the Windows stuff has been broken for some time now, mostly because you have to pay $600 for a C compiler on Windows ;) > > -- > Steven Barker > scbarker@uiuc.edu > > You will have a long and unpleasant discussion with your supervisor. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 17:26:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05596 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:26:13 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05593 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:26:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04309 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:26:47 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:26:47 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) In-Reply-To: <20000224172035.M28173@nacs.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu BTW Borland/Inprise just released their C++ compiler for free, so I'm guessing that the dates have to be specific for that line of reasoning--"reasonable man" theory and all that. On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Jason M. Felice wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:25:07PM -0600, Steven Barker wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: > > > Russell Miller wrote: > > > >I'd have to agree with you and this is another thing that's bothering me. > > > > > > > >The law has to be essentially destroyed. A technicality won't significantly > > > >help our cause in the long run. > > > > > > No technicality anymore. For the 15th time DVD is a console, LiViD is an > > > emulator, and DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD. But the law needs to be > > > ripped to shreds as it stands. Perhaps openlaw.org can contact the senators > > > who tried to keep freedom safe when they amended Section 17 originally. I'm > > > not kidding. If I had a better job, I'd be talking to them myself. > > > > Um, there is a serious flaw in this. DeCSS is a Windows executable. It would > > take a lot of effort to persuade the judge that a Windows program is needed to > > make a Linux program work. It might be possible, but it will be one hell of a > > struggle. > > It was a simple piece of the puzzle under development for Linux, which had no > UFS support at the time (UFS is the DVD filesystem on which the .vob is > stored). > > While kernel hackers implemented UFS, others wrote DeCSS in paralell. That's > not difficult to convince the judge of, especially considering that we can > easily convince the judge that DVD support is a work in progress and not > even a release candidate yet, and only because of the development philosophy > used is it available now. > > The program can be compiled for either platform without changes. Windows > binaries are distributed because you have to pay $600 for a C compiler > on Windows. I do the same thing with my Linux 5250 emulator (although the > Windows stuff has been broken for some time now, mostly because you have > to pay $600 for a C compiler on Windows ;) > > > > > -- > > Steven Barker > > scbarker@uiuc.edu > > > > You will have a long and unpleasant discussion with your supervisor. > > -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice > FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you! Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 17:30:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06850 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:30:31 -0500 Received: from mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (ftp1.imagine-sw.com [206.232.17.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06846 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:30:26 -0500 Received: from metermaid.imagine_ny.com (metermaid [192.9.201.29]) by mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA08606 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:34:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from imagine-sw.com by metermaid.imagine_ny.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA12970; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:30:28 -0500 Message-ID: <38B5B103.70FDBFDA@imagine-sw.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:30:28 -0500 From: Francisco Figueirido Organization: Imagine Software, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Chill :) Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries References: <200002242029.MAA07522@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: > > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > >--- Paul Fenimore wrote: > >> > Can we get off of this Turing Completeness kick? > >> Chill. > > > >I'm just trying to say I think we've gone down a rat-hole that doesn't > >lead anywhere. It's interesting computer science, but I don't think > >it's germane. > > Point taken. It is germane however. > > Interoperability requires programs. Program needs to be defined. DVD is a console and the content on the disc is a program just like any playstation game. If one of those statements is too vague we have no argument. See my previous comments on DVD is a program (I should have said DVD content is a program). > I think that basing a defense on the `content of the disc is a program' is, in the long run, too narrow. (NOTE: I am not taking any position on whether it is a program or not.) And it is, as Rares Marian shows, very fragile. What would you argue if, instead of encrypting .vob files we were fighting to produce OpenSource readers for encrypted audio (plain audio, no navigation, etc.)? I think that the issue doesn't revolve around finding which program fits the bill to claim that DeCSS is necessary for interoperability, although it might be a good short-term legal tactic (IANAL). As it was stressed earlier (not by me!), there is a lot at stake here (I think the phrase `domino effect' was used). If the defense hinges on these technical issues the general public will not be won over by our arguments. Some would argue that this isn't relevant, but I think it is. We are trying to defend some principles, arent' we? I am not trying to be emotional, because that will certainly not help but hinder the case. But I cannot help but find that these technical points (which, notwithstanding some people's comments, are not clear cut even for people used to them) are but a thin cloth shield while we need an iron one. -- Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com 400 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10017 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 17:40:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09924 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:40:48 -0500 Received: from dial126.roadrunner.com (dial126.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.126]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA09920 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:40:43 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial126.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05376 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:44:19 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:44:18 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Suggested FAQ entries Message-ID: <20000224154418.A5280@localhost> References: <20000224192857.14857.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> <20000224123943.A3390@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224123943.A3390@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:39:43PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:39:43PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > The question is whether the lawyers will find it useful, not the judge. > The judge aint gonna read the faq. > > I understood your last post. I'm not going to write a book. I'm going to find > URLs, some of which are already published here. I should take my own advice. Sorry. > > > > > Furthermore, I think turing completeness is a property of a language, > > not of a program. Saying a program is something written in a Turing > > I don't think *I* said anything to disagree with this. > > > Can we get off of this Turing Completeness kick? > > Chill. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 17:46:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11048 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:46:50 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11045 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:46:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 21247 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2000 22:47:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224224729.21246.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:47:29 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:47:29 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAQ Feedback (was: Technical arguments) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > http://www.iag.net/~aleris/dvdfaq.txt Kudos on getting this together! 1.3) What is the DMCA? In the first paragraph.. The FAQ refers to "crimes". It is true that the DMCA did create new criminal offenses, but this is misleading, because the lawsuit at hand is not criminal and persues the new civil "causes of action". Also, a couple paragraphs down when you say "Matshusita/MPAA/DVD pushed the set of laws through Congress" you perhaps overstate their role. Instead of "pushed ... through", I would recommend "lobbied hard for". Otherwise it sounds like Congress are at the beck and call of the MPAA, which is a bit strong. ------ 2.2) What is the purpose of this forum? Why was it created? I can't speak for the purpose of openlaw in general, but the idea for the opendvd section originated in the comment thread "Proposal: open source legal initiative" that I started in a slashdot article on an EFF Fundraiser: http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/04/1042211.shtml The idea was to find a more constructive way to use the power of the open source community to try to directly cause change. The proposal to contact openlaw was made by slashdot user "sholton". I followed up by emailing Wendy Seltzer, as did the slashdot user "ralphclark". Wendy Seltzer took the idea to the staff at the Berkman Center and made the rest happen herself. ----- 3.4) What is fair use, exactly? You should probably cite Title 17 Sect 107, which can be found at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. Also Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) is highly relevant. I would say something like "traditionally, fair use is a 'statutory' defense to infringement." I'd be a little less bold in declaring "Fair use is not a right" because there may yet be 'public good' limitations on Congressional power to grant a more expansive monopoly, which in effect are akin to a "right of fair use". Courts have ruled that the rights *of the copyright holder* are entirely statutory, but never, to my knowledge, have they made such a declaration over the rights of the public to use copyrighted material. More importantly, they HAVE found Congressional limitations on the closely-related patent power, for example, in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1: "The clause is both a grant of power and a limitation. This qualified authority, unlike the power often exercised in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries by the English Crown, is limited to the promotion of advances in the 'useful arts.' ... The Congress in the exercise of the patent power may not overreach the restraints imposed by the stated constitutional purpose. Nor may it enlarge the patent monopoly without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby. Moreover, Congress may not authorize the issuance of patents whose effects are to remove existent knowledge from the public domain, or to restrict free access to materials already available. Innovation, advancement, and things which add to the sum of the useful knowledge are inherent requisites in a patent system which by constitutional command must 'promote the Progress of ... the useful Arts.' This is the standard expressed in the Constitution and it may not be ignored. ... " --- 3.13) Isn't DeCSS covered under the reverse engineering exemptions? I think your answer here is taking sides. You should at minimum grant that this is a lively area of debate in this forum. You could change the question to "Why did Judge Kaplan reject the reverse engineering exception in the preliminary injunciton hearing". You should also cover the arguements that seek to show he made a mistake, even if you don't agree with that point of view. I, for one, think there is a strong arguement to be made under (f)(2,3,4), especially in light of today's discussion of mastering programs such as DVDMotion. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 17:47:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11247 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:47:47 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11244 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:47:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 25742 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 22:52:18 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:52:17 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Message-ID: <20000224175217.L23265@linuxpower.org> References: <200002242214.OAA18102@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200002242214.OAA18102@ns1.filetron.com>; from Rares Marian on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:14:24PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:14:24PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Steven Barker wrote: > >On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >> > There is problem with this argument. The mapping between ASCII bytes and > >> > opcodes is not a property of ASCII, but rather a property of the CPU you > >> > are jammed the bytes into. ASCII is not a computer language. > >> > >> This was my point. The argument was that any list of instructions, TC or not, > >> was reconcilable to assembly opcodes, which are TC, so that any instruction list > >> could be shown to be TC. I don't agree with this for the reason you just > >> stated. My agreement above was to the fact that assembly itself was TC. > >> > >> If you take a non-TC data formatting language (ASCII, DBase .DBF, MPEG-2, etc.) > >> and add extra architecture (which you would have to do) in order to make it > >> reconcilable to a TC programming language, this does not mean that the original > >> data is now Turing Complete. If this were the case, ASCII could be claimed to > >> be a Turing Complete language. > > ASCII isn't a language. Exactly. That's my point. But the *reason* it's not a language is that it lacks Turing Completeness - it is incapable of expressing or performing all of the functions of a Turing Machine. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 17:55:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13769 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:55:17 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA13766 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:55:16 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.197.73]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000224225525.HQQT17030.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:55:25 -0500 Message-ID: <38B5B80F.15202909@sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:00:31 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) References: <200002241739.JAA05280@ns1.filetron.com> <00022414280500.05457@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steven Barker wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: > > Russell Miller wrote: > > >I'd have to agree with you and this is another thing that's bothering me. > > > > > >The law has to be essentially destroyed. A technicality won't significantly > > >help our cause in the long run. > > > > No technicality anymore. For the 15th time DVD is a console, LiViD is an > > emulator, and DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD. But the law needs to be > > ripped to shreds as it stands. Perhaps openlaw.org can contact the senators > > who tried to keep freedom safe when they amended Section 17 originally. I'm > > not kidding. If I had a better job, I'd be talking to them myself. > > Um, there is a serious flaw in this. DeCSS is a Windows executable. It would > take a lot of effort to persuade the judge that a Windows program is needed to > make a Linux program work. It might be possible, but it will be one hell of a > struggle. Um, why would this be a problem? The ONLY part of the windows program that is objectionable to the Judge/MPAA is the implementation of the CSS decryption algorithm - coincidentally, that is one of the parts that requires NOTHING windows-specific to implement. The only thing that needs to be shared between them is the decryption algorithm, and - lo and behold - that's the only thing the MPAA cares about. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 17:57:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA14594 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:57:33 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA14591 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:57:28 -0500 Received: (qmail 25798 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 23:02:07 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:02:07 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAQ Feedback (was: Technical arguments) Message-ID: <20000224180207.M23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000224224729.21246.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224224729.21246.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:47:29PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:47:29PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > http://www.iag.net/~aleris/dvdfaq.txt > > Kudos on getting this together! > > 1.3) What is the DMCA? > > In the first paragraph.. The FAQ refers to "crimes". It is true that > the DMCA did create new criminal offenses, but this is misleading, > because the lawsuit at hand is not criminal and persues the new civil > "causes of action". But the fact remains that these are crimes, with criminal penalties if it is pursued as such. But your point about the current cases is a good one; I'll be sure to make a note about it. Or even better yet, address it in a completely new question: "Are the current court cases criminal trials?" > Also, a couple paragraphs down when you say "Matshusita/MPAA/DVD pushed > the set of laws through Congress" you perhaps overstate their role. > Instead of "pushed ... through", I would recommend "lobbied hard for". > Otherwise it sounds like Congress are at the beck and call of the MPAA, > which is a bit strong. Agreed. Point taken. > > ------ > 2.2) What is the purpose of this forum? Why was it created? > > I can't speak for the purpose of openlaw in general, but the idea for > the opendvd section originated in the comment thread "Proposal: open > source legal initiative" that I started in a slashdot article on an EFF > Fundraiser: http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/04/1042211.shtml > > The idea was to find a more constructive way to use the power of the > open source community to try to directly cause change. The proposal to > contact openlaw was made by slashdot user "sholton". I followed up by > emailing Wendy Seltzer, as did the slashdot user "ralphclark". Wendy > Seltzer took the idea to the staff at the Berkman Center and made the > rest happen herself. Thanks. I'll check it out. > ----- > 3.4) What is fair use, exactly? > > You should probably cite Title 17 Sect 107, which can be found at > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. Also Sony Corp. v. > Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) is highly relevant. I've actually reposted the FAQ three times in the last hour, revising this passage. > > --- > 3.13) Isn't DeCSS covered under the reverse engineering exemptions? > > I think your answer here is taking sides. You should at minimum grant > that this is a lively area of debate in this forum. You could change > the question to "Why did Judge Kaplan reject the reverse engineering > exception in the preliminary injunciton hearing". You should also cover > the arguements that seek to show he made a mistake, even if you don't > agree with that point of view. I, for one, think there is a strong > arguement to be made under (f)(2,3,4), especially in light of today's > discussion of mastering programs such as DVDMotion. Agreed to the degree that I'll replace the current passage with a brief discussion of the reverse engineering exemption and a citation of the law, and leave the rest off. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 18:01:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15577 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:01:42 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA15574 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:01:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 25804 invoked by uid 502); 24 Feb 2000 23:06:26 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:06:26 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAQ Goodness Message-ID: <20000224180626.N23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223005341.P20634@linuxpower.org> <20000223143653.A23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224154609.A23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224154609.A23265@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:46:09PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:46:09PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Team - > > I've got a very, very rough draft of an FAQ online. It's in plaintext, > where it will remain until we're comfortable enough with it to go > official. It's also very incomplete, badly ordered and probably wildly > inaccurate. > > On top of everything else, I still don't have bios for half the people > listed as contributors. If you're listed (or wish to be listed) and > I still don't have a bio line for you yet, please drop me an email > and let me know a little bit about you. > > The FAQ is located at: www.iag.net/~aleris/dvdfaq.txt I just wanted to let everyone know that my work week starts tomorrow morning - I work weekends, 13 hour shifts - so the next substantial updates to the FAQ after tonight will probably be Monday. I'll still be reading my email, but probably won't be posting here much until Monday. Thanks. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 18:03:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15765 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:03:34 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15762 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:03:33 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.197.73]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000224230345.HSDN17030.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:03:45 -0500 Message-ID: <38B5BA04.C4021CA2@sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:08:52 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Presentation (was Technical arguments) References: <200002242015.MAA06168@ns1.filetron.com> <20000224160608.D23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224154817.B16195@thud.reric.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Eric Seppanen wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:06:08PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > The court documents of the New York DMCA case state the defendents as: > > > > Shawn C. Reimerdes > > Eric Corley (a.k.a. "Emmanuel Goldstein" > > Roman Kazan > > > > They currently run the 2600 website at www.2600.com. > > No, "they" don't. Corley aka Goldstein runs 2600. > > Reimerdes runs dvd-copy.com. > > Kazan runs krackdown.com. Just for the record: three defendants that I would ordinarily want nothing to do with. I just so happens that the MPAA chose these three D's wisely, as they actively advocate(d) piracy on their sites, not withstanding that piracy is not necessary for a successful application of 1201(a)(2). Successful actions against -them- necessarily trawls in the 500 other 'traffickers' of the DeCSS technology named in the DVD-CCA trial. -That- is why I'm interested in this case. Getting the above three off the hook is for me a tactically necessary by-product of our efforts here, but not one that I'm interested in from a moral standpoint. I just wanted to make that clear. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 18:18:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA21166 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:18:14 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA21096 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:18:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 17439 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 23:14:19 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 23:14:19 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAB25157; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:18:53 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:18:53 -0800 Message-Id: <200002242318.PAB25157@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Presentation (was Technical arguments) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:57:00PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: >The MPAA knew who they were targeting. They knew full well that busting Linux >developers would make it a bigger mess than they wanted to deal with, so they went >after 2600. This way they could paint the defendents as hackers and demonize them >to hell and back. Fsck that. They don't deserve to be demonized. Just need a reality check. >By the way, I need a one-or-two sentence bio for you for the FAQ. Hmm: Rares Marian, from Waterbury, CT, volunteers at #linuxhelp chat on irc.linux.com, the F-CPU(64-bit openIP chip), LAMP(Linux audio), Dolphin (CORBA based OS), and is starting a high tech multimedia business. >Rob Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 18:33:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA26944 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:33:13 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA26941 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:33:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 18514 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 23:29:18 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 23:29:18 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAB26641; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:33:52 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:33:52 -0800 Message-Id: <200002242333.PAB26641@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Presentation (was Technical arguments) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ian Hay wrote: >Eric Seppanen wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:06:08PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> > >> > The court documents of the New York DMCA case state the defendents as: >> > >> > Shawn C. Reimerdes >> > Eric Corley (a.k.a. "Emmanuel Goldstein" >> > Roman Kazan >> > >> > They currently run the 2600 website at www.2600.com. >> >> No, "they" don't. Corley aka Goldstein runs 2600. >> >> Reimerdes runs dvd-copy.com. >> >> Kazan runs krackdown.com. > >Just for the record: three defendants that I would ordinarily want >nothing to do with. I just so happens that the MPAA chose these three >D's wisely, as they actively advocate(d) piracy on their sites, not >withstanding that piracy is not necessary for a successful application >of 1201(a)(2). Successful actions against -them- necessarily trawls in >the 500 other 'traffickers' of the DeCSS technology named in the DVD-CCA >trial. -That- is why I'm interested in this case. Getting the above >three off the hook is for me a tactically necessary by-product of our >efforts here, but not one that I'm interested in from a moral >standpoint. C'mon not even cracking the Ford Explorer(not a dangerous intrusion if I remember)? I don't necessarily think they're all bad, Corley that's a different story. Loves to talk on and on. I mean cracking for protest purposes doesn't bother me. But just busting websites for no reason (as opposed to China's Human Rights Page) that needs to stop. It makes hackers like myself look bad when crackers do stupid things. Not that I hold 2600.com in higher respect than say the free developers' services on the net. >I just wanted to make that clear. > > >I. >-- > ____ >| | Ian R. Hay >|____| Toronto, Canada Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 18:46:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32086 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:46:58 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32083 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:46:57 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 40CCE76F5; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:48:05 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Presentation (was Technical arguments) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:33:36 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002242015.MAA06168@ns1.filetron.com> In-Reply-To: <200002242015.MAA06168@ns1.filetron.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022417480500.05725@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: > Sorry for the rant, but first public impression is key to making this work. No not really. Public impression is only one part of it. The primary focus has got to be on sound legal arguments that can be used by Lawyers in trial. If we can win the case, public opinion won't matter as much. >> And the current case has nothing to do with Johansen. That's between him and the Norwegian >> authorities. > Okay, then who is it exactly? I know I missed something stupid and obvious but I'm all over the place as it is anyway. The case we are mostly discussing is the one in federal court in New York, officially known as "MPAA v. Shawn C. Reimerdes; Eric Corley A/K/A 'Emmanuel Goldstein'; and Roman Kazan" and concerns the distribution of Windows binaries of DeCSS on websites run by the defendants. Another case which has recieved much less attention on the mailing list is in California, is between the DVD CCA and a large number of people, over trade secret violations (distributing of DeCSS, which contains the CSS encryption protocol, which they claim is their trade secret). I think generally this case is considered much weaker. I hope this clarifies whatever you were unsure of. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu "Do you think there's a God?" "Well, ____SOMEbody's out to get me!" -- Calvin and Hobbs From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 18:59:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA03511 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:59:18 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03508 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:59:17 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7AA9C76F5; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:00:25 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:53:16 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000224052414.24656.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000224135259.I28173@nacs.net> <20000224152939.Y23265@linuxpower.org> In-Reply-To: <20000224152939.Y23265@linuxpower.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022418002501.05725@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > For those of you out there who have no idea about this - Foxpro is a DBase > clone, currently owned by Microsoft, that has been around for years. Part > of the system is screen and form construction; different screen objects can > have embedded source code to be executed when the control is used. These > source code fragments are stored in what are called "Memo" fields, which are > open text pages. The entire screen layout is stored in a Foxpro .DBF file, > structurally identical to the database files used to store normal data. > > Personally, I see this as no different from C source being stored in ASCII > text. You have a TC language being contained in a non-TC data formatting > specification. That doesn't make the data format itself TC. > > Or put more succinctly, if you videotaped pages of C source and then > converted that video into MPEG, the resulting MPEG file is not Turing > Complete. It is still a non-TC data format. I agree with what you say here, that the .dbf files produced by Foxpro or the ascii files with C source are both data, not programs. However, I think that is the opposite of the situation in DVD Video. DVD Video is a program format that *contains* the other formats of data (MPEG 2 Video, sound formats, etc) in the .vob file. This is more like having ASCII data imbedded into an assembly program in such a way that the program can access that data and use it. The program contains the data, not the data contains the program. I could be wrong of course. If anyone can find a definate description of how exactly the program content is in the .vob files then we'd know for sure. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu "Do you think there's a God?" "Well, ____SOMEbody's out to get me!" -- Calvin and Hobbs From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 19:36:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA13921 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:36:25 -0500 Received: from web503.mail.yahoo.com (web503.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.70]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA13918 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:36:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 4951 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Feb 2000 00:37:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000225003705.4950.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web503.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:37:05 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:37:05 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] UCITA Definition of Computer Program To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu UNIFORM COMPUTER INFORMATION TRANSACTIONS ACT SECTION 102. DEFINITIONS. (13) "Computer program" means a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer to bring about a certain result. The term does not include separately identifiable informational content. (39) "Informational content" means information that is intended to be communicated to or perceived by an individual in the ordinary use of the information, or the equivalent of that information. The term does not include computer instructions that control the interaction of a computer program with other computer programs or with a machine or device. Reference: http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/citam99.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 19:52:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA19247 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:52:31 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA19163 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:52:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 19399 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Feb 2000 00:53:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000225005302.19398.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:53:02 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:53:02 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Definition of Computer Program in 17 USC Sec. 101 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There is a definition of "computer program" in Title 17. 17 USC Sec. 101 - Definitions "A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result." http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html This is the definition the judge must use. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 19:55:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA20232 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:55:51 -0500 Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts1.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.139]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA20212 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:55:50 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.197.9]) by tomts3-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000225005401.YKOS3031.tomts3-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:54:01 -0500 Message-ID: <38B5D3DD.B8042928@sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:59:09 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Fair use research References: <00022411435300.05214@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steven Barker wrote: > > Hey, I decided to start looking for past cases that might give us an idea on > how fair use (or other constitutional arguments) might help us in invalidating > 1201. You will fail. Fair use is NOT a constitutional right. Nor is it even an independent right provided for by statute. It is a -defence to copyright infringment provided for by statute-. EVEN if it were a statutory right, the complaint that "1201 takes away the right of fair use" is extremely weak: a -statute- can take away a right found in a -statute-. That's what a statute does. The only way we can -invalidate- 1201 or any subsection therein is on constitutional grounds. These are being flushed out, and flushed out well, but DO NOT mistake the constitutional arguments here for the set of arguments being developed in parallel (such as the RE exception) which attempt to fit DeCSS within the statute -as it stands-. Fair use, if it is applicable - which it may be - fits into the latter category. If you want to read more about fair use, here are some useful US cases: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc., 115 S.Ct. 1164 (1994) (aka the 2 Live Crew case) New Era Publications v. Carol Publishing Group (1990) 904 F 2d 153 (CA2) (aka the L. Ron Hubbard case) Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services Inc (1996), 99 F.3d 1381 (aka A Bunch of Brazen Thieves case [my label]. You've already noted this one). > In a brief search, I've come up with fairuse.stanford.edu/primary/ which > has a number of links to the constituional passages, specific laws, and > judgements that help define fair use. > > Just briefly skimming through the beginning of the first cited case, Princeton > University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc, I've found a lot of good > argument over what exactly fair use is. Though not all of it is relevant to > this case, an important point by the defence (who was claiming fair use as a > defense from infringement) was that "Because the primary purpose of the > Constitution's Copyright Clause is not to enrich authors and inventors but to > encourage the progress of science and the production of creative works for the > public good, only unfair uses of copyrighted materials are prohibited; fair > uses are affirmatively guaranteed to the public." Just FYI - the defendants lost this case. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 20:01:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21552 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:01:04 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21543 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:01:03 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.197.9]) by tomts3-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000225005941.YLPY3031.tomts3-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:59:41 -0500 Message-ID: <38B5D531.630F384E@sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:04:49 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Definition of Computer Program in 17 USC Sec. 101 References: <20000225005302.19398.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > > There is a definition of "computer program" in Title 17. > > 17 USC Sec. 101 - Definitions > "A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used > directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain > result." > This is the definition the judge must use. Then it's also the definition we must use: and I think it's a good one. Not as elaborative as the Canadian definition, but contains the important "instructions" and "indirectly" language that I found so appealing about the latter. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 20:07:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA23486 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:07:36 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA23483 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:07:35 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 32B7A76F5; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:08:44 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:00:16 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002241739.JAA05280@ns1.filetron.com> <00022414280500.05457@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <38B5B80F.15202909@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <38B5B80F.15202909@sympatico.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022419084402.05725@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Ian Hay wrote: > Steven Barker wrote: > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Rares Marian wrote: > > > No technicality anymore. For the 15th time DVD is a console, LiViD is an > > > emulator, and DeCSS is an integral part of LiViD. But the law needs to be > > > ripped to shreds as it stands. Perhaps openlaw.org can contact the senators > > > who tried to keep freedom safe when they amended Section 17 originally. I'm > > > not kidding. If I had a better job, I'd be talking to them myself. > > > > Um, there is a serious flaw in this. DeCSS is a Windows executable. It would > > take a lot of effort to persuade the judge that a Windows program is needed to > > make a Linux program work. It might be possible, but it will be one hell of a > > struggle. > > Um, why would this be a problem? The ONLY part of the windows program > that is objectionable to the Judge/MPAA is the implementation of the CSS > decryption algorithm - coincidentally, that is one of the parts that > requires NOTHING windows-specific to implement. The only thing that > needs to be shared between them is the decryption algorithm, and - lo > and behold - that's the only thing the MPAA cares about. I wouldn't be so sure. I think the MPAA would insist that the program be considered as a whole unit. Remember, they are not objecting (at the moment) about the source to DeCSS. The binary version only runs on Windows. Proving that it is used exclusively to allow interoperation between DVD Video and LiViD, a program that (only?) runs in Linux, will be hard. Not impossible, mind you. I hope it will work, but I would prefer it to be a backup to a stronger attack on the law itself, based on previous law regarding fair use and other constitutional points. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it. -- Andrew Young (wow, desturbingly appropriate random .sig...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 20:25:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA28011 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:25:38 -0500 Received: from dial210.roadrunner.com (dial210.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA27982 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:25:35 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial210.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA07025 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:29:14 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:29:12 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Definition of Computer Program in 17 USC Sec. 101 Message-ID: <20000224182912.A6679@localhost> References: <20000225005302.19398.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> <38B5D531.630F384E@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38B5D531.630F384E@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:04:49PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:04:49PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > There is a definition of "computer program" in Title 17. > > > > 17 USC Sec. 101 - Definitions > > "A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used > > directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain > > result." > > > This is the definition the judge must use. > > Then it's also the definition we must use: and I think it's a good one. > Not as elaborative as the Canadian definition, but contains the > important "instructions" and "indirectly" language that I found so > appealing about the latter. Partial translation: "A broken computer program is still a program." Ouch. This definition makes HTML tags a program. I don't see any technical basis to get around that point. Turing complete is out the window. Let's talk interoperation between programs. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 20:27:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA29654 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:27:23 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA29510 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:27:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 25956 invoked by uid 502); 25 Feb 2000 01:31:57 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:31:57 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] UCITA Definition of Computer Program Message-ID: <20000224203157.Q23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000225003705.4950.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000225003705.4950.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:37:05PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:37:05PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > UNIFORM COMPUTER INFORMATION TRANSACTIONS ACT > SECTION 102. DEFINITIONS. > > (13) "Computer program" means a set of statements or instructions to be > used directly or indirectly in a computer to bring about a certain > result. The term does not include separately identifiable > informational content. > > (39) "Informational content" means information that is intended to be > communicated to or perceived by an individual in the ordinary use of > the information, or the equivalent of that information. The term > does not include computer instructions that control the interaction of > a computer program with other computer programs or with a machine or > device. > > Reference: http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/citam99.htm Sure UCITA hasn't become federal law yet, but what the hell. Thanks, Bryan. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 20:29:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA00640 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:29:53 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA00602 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:29:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 25963 invoked by uid 502); 25 Feb 2000 01:34:34 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:34:34 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Definition of Computer Program in 17 USC Sec. 101 Message-ID: <20000224203434.R23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000225005302.19398.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000225005302.19398.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:53:02PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:53:02PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > There is a definition of "computer program" in Title 17. > > 17 USC Sec. 101 - Definitions > "A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used > directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain > result." > > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html > > This is the definition the judge must use. Bryan, let me be the first to say that you're absolutely right. All I wanted was to see it in law; there it is. Thanks. I'll put it into the FAQ now. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 20:35:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA07004 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:35:37 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA06932 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:35:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 25973 invoked by uid 502); 25 Feb 2000 01:40:16 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:40:16 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Definition of Computer Program in 17 USC Sec. 101 Message-ID: <20000224204016.S23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000225005302.19398.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> <38B5D531.630F384E@sympatico.ca> <20000224182912.A6679@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224182912.A6679@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:29:12PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:29:12PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:04:49PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > > > There is a definition of "computer program" in Title 17. > > > > > > 17 USC Sec. 101 - Definitions > > > "A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used > > > directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain > > > result." > > > > > This is the definition the judge must use. > > > > Then it's also the definition we must use: and I think it's a good one. > > Not as elaborative as the Canadian definition, but contains the > > important "instructions" and "indirectly" language that I found so > > appealing about the latter. > > Partial translation: "A broken computer program is still a program." Ouch. > > This definition makes HTML tags a program. I don't see any technical basis > to get around that point. Turing complete is out the window. Let's talk > interoperation between programs. Amen. Yeah, the definition sucks. I mean, it's awful. But that's the definition the government wants to use, who are we to argue? It's field day time, kids. Should I even leave the "What is Turing Completeness?" in the FAQ? I've reduced 4.1 down to just a quote of the above passage. I'm not sure even continuing to mention TC is relevant anymore. Thanks again, Bryan. Feel free to describe CSS as a program now. :) Under this definition, damned near anything is a program. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 20:41:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA09202 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:41:34 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA09185 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:41:31 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17959 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:52:31 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:52:30 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Definition of Computer Program in 17 USC Sec. 101 Message-ID: <20000224175230.P14206@duskglow.com> References: <20000225005302.19398.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> <38B5D531.630F384E@sympatico.ca> <20000224182912.A6679@localhost> <20000224204016.S23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000224204016.S23265@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:40:16PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:40:16PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Should I even leave the "What is Turing Completeness?" in the FAQ? I've > reduced 4.1 down to just a quote of the above passage. I'm not sure even > continuing to mention TC is relevant anymore. > Because people might read the faq after or before reading the list, I would leave it in as a point of explanation about some things you might read on the list. Maybe a note in there: "It's been generally agreed that given the definition of "program" in Title 17 that this has become irrelevant. But since it is referenced frequently in the list, ..." > Thanks again, Bryan. Feel free to describe CSS as a program now. :) Under > this definition, damned near anything is a program. > Which seems to make things a whole hell of a lot easier. --Russell > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 21:44:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA01720 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:44:51 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA01717 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:44:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 26119 invoked by uid 502); 25 Feb 2000 02:49:30 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:49:30 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAQ Goodness Message-ID: <20000224214930.V23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223005341.P20634@linuxpower.org> <20000223143653.A23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224154609.A23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224180626.N23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224180626.N23265@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:06:26PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Team - Okay. The last cut of the FAQ is up until probably Monday. I'll still be checking my email, so please keep sending the updates. Also, please don't consider a short or brief answer (or for that matter, no answer at all) on the FAQ to mean that I don't see the issue as important or that I'm glossing it over. More likely, I just don't have the information at hand. Feel free to write up your own answer and email it to me; more than likely it will become the development FAQ answer. Thanks, Rob From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 22:06:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA06829 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:06:08 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA06826 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:06:07 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3326876F5; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:07:16 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Fair use research Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:09:13 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <00022411435300.05214@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <38B5D3DD.B8042928@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <38B5D3DD.B8042928@sympatico.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022421071603.05725@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Ian Hay wrote: > Steven Barker wrote: > > > > Hey, I decided to start looking for past cases that might give us an idea on > > how fair use (or other constitutional arguments) might help us in invalidating > > 1201. > > You will fail. Fair use is NOT a constitutional right. Nor is it even > an independent right provided for by statute. It is a -defence to > copyright infringment provided for by statute-. EVEN if it were a > statutory right, the complaint that "1201 takes away the right of fair > use" is extremely weak: a -statute- can take away a right found in a > -statute-. That's what a statute does. > > The only way we can -invalidate- 1201 or any subsection therein is on > constitutional grounds. These are being flushed out, and flushed out > well, but DO NOT mistake the constitutional arguments here for the set > of arguments being developed in parallel (such as the RE exception) > which attempt to fit DeCSS within the statute -as it stands-. Fair use, > if it is applicable - which it may be - fits into the latter category. Ok, I guess I am not arguing fair use as defined in section 107 of title 17. I am applying the constitutional argument that fair use is based on to our case. The case law about fair use explains a lot of this and can help us convince the judge that 1201 goes beyond the bounds of the copyright clause. > Just FYI - the defendants lost this case. They won the judgement that I was citing, with one judge partially dissenting. They could have lost on a further appeal I guess. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Pournelle must die! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 23:01:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA26781 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:01:28 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA26765 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:01:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 1168 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2000 03:57:33 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2000 03:57:33 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA13320; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:02:07 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:02:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200002250402.UAA13320@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Two Antitrust Theories against MPAA Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steven Barker wrote: >On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > The >program contains the data, not the data contains the program. > >I could be wrong of course. If anyone can find a definate description of how >exactly the program content is in the .vob files then we'd know for sure. Dana described the process of making a DVD, and I came to the conclusion it's DVD players are consoles. You have to know ahead of time what you're recording in order to make a DVD. Note DVD is not limited to movies: Look at it as a MUD. With a MUD: You have an object driver that manages the movement of items, Non Player Characters, and Players. Now you might say that all else you see is just descriptions of powers, spells, rooms, and items. But there's more. You have scripts that manage consequences of different actions. You need to have a draft of ideas (know what will be recorded) before you can write up the rules, scripts, and different actions. Or even before you write up the map of the MUD. This is most common in the tutorial stages of a MUD where every step you take has an associated cinematic sequence (in ASCII of course). Essentially the elements of a .vob are similar. I need to look into it further, but I'm sure this is pretty accurate. >-- > Steven Barker > scbarker@uiuc.edu > > "Do you think there's a God?" > "Well, ____SOMEbody's out to get me!" > -- Calvin and Hobbs Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 23:29:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA03209 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:29:33 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA03206 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:29:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 17362 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Feb 2000 04:30:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000225043006.17361.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:30:06 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:30:06 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Fair use research To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Steven Barker wrote: > Ok, I guess I am not arguing fair use as defined in section 107 of > title 17. I am applying the constitutional argument that fair use is > based on to our case. The case law about fair use explains a lot of > this and can help us convince the judge that 1201 goes beyond the > bounds of the copyright clause. A good place to start is with Lee v. Runge, 404 U.S. 887 (1971) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=404&invol=887 This opinion was a dissent to not granting certiorari, so it doesn't carry any weight, but it does list some good arguements with references. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 23:38:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA05177 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:38:48 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA05173 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:38:47 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06727 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:37:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:37:57 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] UCITA Definition of Computer Program Message-ID: <20000224233756.O28173@nacs.net> References: <20000225003705.4950.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <20000224203157.Q23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000224203157.Q23265@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:31:57PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:37:05PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > UNIFORM COMPUTER INFORMATION TRANSACTIONS ACT > > SECTION 102. DEFINITIONS. > > > > (13) "Computer program" means a set of statements or instructions to be > > used directly or indirectly in a computer to bring about a certain > > result. The term does not include separately identifiable > > informational content. > > > > (39) "Informational content" means information that is intended to be > > communicated to or perceived by an individual in the ordinary use of > > the information, or the equivalent of that information. The term > > does not include computer instructions that control the interaction of > > a computer program with other computer programs or with a machine or > > device. > > main () { printf ("Hello, World!"); } ... is one half program? I don't like the sound of this.... > > Reference: http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/citam99.htm > > > Sure UCITA hasn't become federal law yet, but what the hell. Thanks, > Bryan. > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 23:57:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA10958 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:57:42 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA10955 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:57:41 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA17247 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:58:24 -0600 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:58:23 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] searchable list archives? Message-ID: <20000224225823.A17238@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Is there any way to search the archives of this list? If not, is there anyone else who would like one? I'd be happy to set one up if someone were to give me access to the raw (mbox-format) archives. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 00:25:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA16653 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 00:25:31 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA16650 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 00:25:29 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.59] (helo=ip59.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12ODGV-0002wg-00; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 00:26:12 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 05:24:31 GMT Message-ID: <38be101e.38386180@mail.tiac.net> References: <200002241739.JAA05280@ns1.filetron.com> <00022414280500.05457@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> <38B5B80F.15202909@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <38B5B80F.15202909@sympatico.ca> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id AAA16651 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:00:31 -0500, Ian wrote: >Um, why would this be a problem? The ONLY part of the windows program >that is objectionable to the Judge/MPAA is the implementation of the CSS >decryption algorithm - coincidentally, that is one of the parts that >requires NOTHING windows-specific to implement. The only thing that >needs to be shared between them is the decryption algorithm, and - lo >and behold - that's the only thing the MPAA cares about. I think they probably object more broadly to what they see as the function of DeCSS. I don't have any quotes handy, but many times have heard film industry reps object not just to the ability to copy DVDs intact, but even to copy high resolution stills, audio, etc. If an unencrypted MPEG can be extracted, that is enough. They have never accepted Betamax; have tried to interpret that decision as "for time shifting only" (as if each viewer should only be allowed to possess one VHS cassette); and now have the technical and legal tools to erase Betamax. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 10:13:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA11848 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:13:43 -0500 Received: from mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (ftp1.imagine-sw.com [206.232.17.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA11845 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:13:40 -0500 Received: from metermaid.imagine_ny.com (metermaid [192.9.201.29]) by mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA11883 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:17:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from imagine-sw.com by metermaid.imagine_ny.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA13886; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:13:53 -0500 Message-ID: <38B69C2F.66253273@imagine-sw.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:13:51 -0500 From: Francisco Figueirido Organization: Imagine Software, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Definition of Computer Program in 17 USC Sec. 101 References: <20000225005302.19398.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> <38B5D531.630F384E@sympatico.ca> <20000224182912.A6679@localhost> <20000224204016.S23265@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:29:12PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:04:49PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > > > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a definition of "computer program" in Title 17. > > > > > > > > 17 USC Sec. 101 - Definitions > > > > "A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used > > > > directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain > > > > result." > > > > > > > This is the definition the judge must use. > > > > > > Then it's also the definition we must use: and I think it's a good one. > > > Not as elaborative as the Canadian definition, but contains the > > > important "instructions" and "indirectly" language that I found so > > > appealing about the latter. > > > > Partial translation: "A broken computer program is still a program." Ouch. > > > > This definition makes HTML tags a program. I don't see any technical basis > > to get around that point. Turing complete is out the window. Let's talk > > interoperation between programs. > > Amen. Yeah, the definition sucks. I mean, it's awful. But that's the > definition the government wants to use, who are we to argue? It's field day > time, kids. > > Should I even leave the "What is Turing Completeness?" in the FAQ? I've > reduced 4.1 down to just a quote of the above passage. I'm not sure even > continuing to mention TC is relevant anymore. > > Thanks again, Bryan. Feel free to describe CSS as a program now. :) Under > this definition, damned near anything is a program. > I agree with that last sentence wholeheartedly. One more example that Law does not equal Truth. -- Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com 400 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10017 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 10:54:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19460 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:54:11 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19457 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:54:08 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA19631 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:54:46 -0600 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:54:46 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] region coding covered under 17USC1201? Message-ID: <20000225095446.A19613@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Question: Is region coding a technical measure protected under 17USC1201? The reason I ask is, if region coding were _not_ protected, couldn't it be argued that a "commercially significant purpose" of DeCSS is to play DVDs from other regions? Because CSS licensees are required to implement region coding, they have created a legitimate commercial need for such a tool. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 11:08:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA22382 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:08:00 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA22352 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:07:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 5853 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Feb 2000 16:07:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20000225160756.5852.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:07:56 PST Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:07:56 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ron Gustavson wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:00:31 -0500, Ian wrote: > > >Um, why would this be a problem? The ONLY part of the windows > > program that is objectionable to the Judge/MPAA is the > > implementation of the CSS decryption algorithm - coincidentally, > > that is one of the parts that requires NOTHING windows-specific to > > implement. The only thing that needs to be shared between them > > is the decryption algorithm, and - lo and behold - that's the only > > thing the MPAA cares about. > > I think they probably object more broadly to what they see as the > function of DeCSS. I don't have any quotes handy, but many times > have heard film industry reps object not just to the ability to copy DVDs > intact, but even to copy high resolution stills, audio, etc. If an > unencrypted MPEG can be extracted, that is enough. They have > never accepted Betamax; have tried to interpret that decision as > "for time shifting only" (as if each viewer should only be allowed to > possess one VHS cassette); and now have the technical > and legal tools to erase Betamax. >From the accounts I've heard, DeCSS on windows has two buttons: one to decrypt and one to save the output to disk. (Can anybody post a screen shot somewhere?). The decrypt button contains the functionality that may be within scope of 1201(a)(2). If for any reason this functionality by itself can get out of the grip of (a)(2) then the copy to disk part is 'fair use'. It really doesn't matter if the MPAA didn't accept the decision in Sony, the Supreme Court has spoken and Congress actually reaffirmed 'fair use' in 1201(c), although they did make it harder to get into position to take advantage of it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 11:36:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28383 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:36:57 -0500 Received: from web502.mail.yahoo.com (web502.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA28357 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:36:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 8264 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Feb 2000 16:37:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20000225163729.8263.qmail@web502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web502.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:37:29 PST Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:37:29 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Letter from Robin Gross of the EFF To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's an email that I got back from Robin Gross of the EFF. The bottom line is the EFF is following the discussion and plans to participate directly by posting some specific questions soon. --- Robin Gross wrote: > Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:21:30 -0800 > From: Robin Gross > Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation > To: Bryan Taylor > CC: Wendy Seltzer > Subject: Re: DVD cases mailing list & discussion forum > > Hi Bryan: > > Thanks to Frank Stevenson, I was recently added to this excellent > discussion list. > > I spoke with Wendy Seltzer Tuesday about the best way to harness > the energy and put to productive use the many individuals on the > discussion list towards the goal of winning these lawsuits. We > decided that one idea would be to divide the list into a couple different > groups, for example a group of lawyers and law students to focus on > legal questions and a group of technology savvy folks who can explain > the intricate DVD technical issues to the lawyers, journalists, and > the public. The legal defense team is now coming up with a series of > questions and issues that we need explored in more detail by > intelligent and dedicated folks on this list to assist in the defense > of the cases. We can post the questions to these groups on this list > for them to spend some time working on. One thing that would be > helpful would be for some people to volunteer to be willing to take > responsibility for a particular question and see its being worked > through and answered on the lists. Thank you again for all the > incredible help on this case. It is sure to make a tremendous > difference! > > All the best, > Robin > > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > I'm curious to know if you've been following the discussion in the > > dvd-discuss mailing list at openlaw. If so, has it been valuable to > > you and is there anything specific you'd like us to explore? What > > can we do to make the forum provide more useful ideas to you? > > Especially, should we be trying to provide legal citations for more > > things or should we concentrate on technical exposition, or both? > > > > Thanks... > > Bryan > > > > PS I'd like to post your reply unless you ask me not to. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 11:50:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30213 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:50:02 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30196 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:50:00 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.145] (helo=ip145.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12ONwx-0007Mr-00; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:50:43 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:49:50 GMT Message-ID: <38b6b264.5766865@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000225160756.5852.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000225160756.5852.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id LAA30202 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:07:56 -0800 (PST), Bryan wrote: >>From the accounts I've heard, DeCSS on windows has two buttons: one to >decrypt and one to save the output to disk. (Can anybody post a screen >shot somewhere?). The decrypt button contains the functionality that >may be within scope of 1201(a)(2). done. http://www.tiac.net/users/rongus/decss2.gif I don't have an encrypted disc to test it with tho-- __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 12:10:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA02635 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:10:57 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA02632 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:10:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 3557 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Feb 2000 17:11:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000225171139.3556.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:11:39 PST Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:11:39 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ron Gustavson wrote: > http://www.tiac.net/users/rongus/decss2.gif Thanks for the screen shot. It looks like all the functionality is in the single button called "transfer" which results in files being "copied/decrypted". I guess I need to revise my statement. If the "decrypted" functionality in this button passes (a)(2), then the "copyied" part (which by itself doesn't involve access) is allowed by fair use under (c)(1). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 12:18:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04652 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:18:49 -0500 Received: from train.sdrm.org (cx48762-a.cv1.sdca.home.com [24.0.158.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA04648 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:18:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (wolfgang@localhost) by train.sdrm.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13876; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:18:57 -0800 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:18:57 -0800 (PST) From: Lewis E Wolfgang To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] region coding covered under 17USC1201? In-Reply-To: <20000225095446.A19613@thud.reric.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > Question: Is region coding a technical measure protected under 17USC1201? > > The reason I ask is, if region coding were _not_ protected, couldn't it be > argued that a "commercially significant purpose" of DeCSS is to play DVDs > from other regions? Because CSS licensees are required to implement > region coding, they have created a legitimate commercial need for such a > tool. If region coding were protected, why haven't various commercial vendors of "upgrade modules" for DVD players been prosecuted? As a point of reference, these modules are available from several vendors (typically European) for most of the name brand home DVD players. They disable region coding, allow playback of either PAL or NTSC format, disable the dreaded Macrovision and remove Pin-code locks. Several other features/impediments that I don't understand may also be altered. Could it be that DCCA considers these modules legal under fair use, or that it doesn't want a wave of world-wide bad press regarding region coding being illegal in and of itself? DeCSS (and friends) would allow control of all the referenced functions plus enable viewing with unlicensed players. So is the real issue unlicensed players or is it that these unlicensed players allow easy access to the unencrypted audio/video data? The pirating allegation may be a smoke screen since DVDs may be duplicated lock, stock and barrel without difficulty. The real issue is probably that the unlicensed players "could" enable a worldwide Internet market of purloined video content. That this worldwide video market hasn't happened, prosecution of DeCSS and friends could be considered to be "prior restraint". But then, that's what the DMCA was designed to address, right? Regards, Lew Wolfgang wolfgang@sdrm.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 12:53:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA13960 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:53:07 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA13957 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:53:04 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA19939 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:53:47 -0600 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:53:47 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] region coding covered under 17USC1201? Message-ID: <20000225115347.A19926@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000225095446.A19613@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 09:18:57AM -0800, Lewis E Wolfgang wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > Question: Is region coding a technical measure protected under 17USC1201? > > > > The reason I ask is, if region coding were _not_ protected, couldn't it be > > argued that a "commercially significant purpose" of DeCSS is to play DVDs > > from other regions? Because CSS licensees are required to implement > > region coding, they have created a legitimate commercial need for such a > > tool. > > If region coding were protected, why haven't various commercial > vendors of "upgrade modules" for DVD players been prosecuted? > > As a point of reference, these modules are available from several > vendors (typically European) for most of the name brand home DVD > players. I think you've answered your own question: The vendors are in Europe, and the MPAA can't stick them with 1201(a)(2) over there. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 12:55:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA14776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:55:56 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA14751 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:55:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 3963 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2000 17:52:06 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2000 17:52:06 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA13739; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:56:38 -0800 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:56:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200002251756.JAA13739@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Devil's Advocate on Re: [dvd-discuss] region coding covered under 17USC1201? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Region code help w/ these issues: 1. Cultural editing of content. Different markets different values. 2. Scalping cuts down the revenue received because the scalpers make huge profits from few buyers. 3. Scheduling of release. Must create proper drool atmosphere before release into a market and must also make quick decisions about failures and successes in different markets plus it isn't very easy to just send more tapes. That's what you have to fight. Rares Lewis E Wolfgang wrote: > >On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > >> Question: Is region coding a technical measure protected under 17USC1201? >> >> The reason I ask is, if region coding were _not_ protected, couldn't it be >> argued that a "commercially significant purpose" of DeCSS is to play DVDs >> from other regions? Because CSS licensees are required to implement >> region coding, they have created a legitimate commercial need for such a >> tool. > >If region coding were protected, why haven't various commercial >vendors of "upgrade modules" for DVD players been prosecuted? > >As a point of reference, these modules are available from several >vendors (typically European) for most of the name brand home DVD >players. They disable region coding, allow playback of either PAL >or NTSC format, disable the dreaded Macrovision and remove Pin-code >locks. Several other features/impediments that I don't understand >may also be altered. > >Could it be that DCCA considers these modules legal under fair use, >or that it doesn't want a wave of world-wide bad press regarding >region coding being illegal in and of itself? > >DeCSS (and friends) would allow control of all the referenced >functions plus enable viewing with unlicensed players. So is >the real issue unlicensed players or is it that these unlicensed >players allow easy access to the unencrypted audio/video data? >The pirating allegation may be a smoke screen since DVDs >may be duplicated lock, stock and barrel without difficulty. >The real issue is probably that the unlicensed players "could" >enable a worldwide Internet market of purloined video content. > >That this worldwide video market hasn't happened, prosecution >of DeCSS and friends could be considered to be "prior restraint". >But then, that's what the DMCA was designed to address, right? > >Regards, >Lew Wolfgang >wolfgang@sdrm.org > > > > ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 12:57:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA15585 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:57:53 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15581 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:57:50 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08356 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:56:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:56:56 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DDanger Will Robinson is the decryption mechanism within the hardware? Message-ID: <20000225125656.S28173@nacs.net> References: <200002232235.OAA13995@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002232235.OAA13995@ns1.filetron.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:35:59PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Dana Parker wrote: > >Ian Hay wrote: > > > >> greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >> > >> > As Dana pointed out, the interactive nature of DVD media could technically > >> > constitute a "program", even while "CSS" (as a scrambling method) does > >> > not. Is this the "other program" you believe the independently created > >> > computer program enables interoperability with? > >> > >> As I pointed out in another post, both approaches (DVD media as > >> "program, and CSS as "program") may be valid: I'm not sure why you > >> choose the former over the latter as more plausible (from a legal > >> standpoint: Dana has effectively demonstrated that it is plausible from > >> a technical standpoint). I still hold the view that a court would be > >> more comfortable in finding that CSS as a device/method is more > >> consistent with the idea of a "computer program". > >> > >> Either way, nothing prevents us from arguing -both-. > >> > >> I. > >> -- > >> ____ > >> | | Ian R. Hay > >> |____| Toronto, Canada > > > >Forgive me if this is inane, IANAE (I am not an engineer). CSS is BOTH a > >scrambling and unscrambling system. The program that adds CSS to a given title > >may not enter in to the question, but the program that descrambles it lives in > >every DVD player as a set of instructions that tells the hardware what to do > >with the keys to unlock the disc. Doesn't it? > > > > Okay this could suck. Then that would prove DeCSS is circumvention and now we know why demonstrating is bad. The mechanism to decrypt is already available in the machine. > I'm not certain this is true. Actually, I highly doubt that it is true that all DVD hardware has CSS decryption software within it. All console players (as in the type that looks like a stereo component that you hook to your a/v system) certainly do, but if CSS decryption was part of the hardware in a computer DVD drive, we would not be here. Here's some questions to ask yourself: 1) If CSS decryption is in the player, why would we have bothered to create DeCSS/css-auth? 2) Why would we have access to the encrypted stream? It would seem to me that the player should have not let us read those sectors unless we authenticated with it, then it would provide them unencrypted. 3) If CSS decryption is in the player, why would we need css-auth to view them under Linux? We'd only have to authenticate with the hardware, and doing so means this case wouldn't be about "CSS circumvention" but "some such authentication method circumvention." Now, can anyone confirm that for sure? -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 13:04:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA16530 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:04:01 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA16527 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:03:59 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08413 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:03:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:03:02 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Color me DOH! Message-ID: <20000225130302.T28173@nacs.net> References: <200002240520.VAA11556@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002240520.VAA11556@ns1.filetron.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:20:17PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > > Much easier :) I can't wait for the opportunity to outdo them. FMD-ROM plus 360 deg video cams I just need to write a good Mud and invest in the right tech. Heh. Yes, but how popular do think that will become if you can't get any of the millions of currently available Hollywood movies for it (including both good ones)? > > > > > Rares > ---------------------- > Do you do Linux? :) > Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 13:11:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA17478 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:11:09 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17475 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:11:06 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08438 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:10:11 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:10:11 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD development process, in brief Message-ID: <20000225131011.U28173@nacs.net> References: <200002241727.JAA02823@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002241727.JAA02823@ns1.filetron.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:27:32AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Bryan Taylor wrote: > >--- Dana Parker wrote: > >> http://www.dvdexperts.com/education.htm > > > >Thanks, I found this pretty helpful. > > >Authoring tools are similar to VideoCD or CD-I tools. However, because > >the DVD Video format is so much more complex, the tools are much more > >capable and complex as well. System platforms include SGI, MAC, and > >Windows NT. The language is proprietary and cannot be recreated using C > >or some other programming language." This statement probably means that it is licensed as well and you legally cannot recreate it using C or some other language. Anything else would be laughably false. What did they write the language in? C? Assembly? C was originally designed to be the 'portable assembler'. (A was the assembler, B was the next try, C was the succesful one). -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 13:29:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA20782 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:29:50 -0500 Received: from yakko.cs.wmich.edu (root@yakko.cs.wmich.edu [141.218.40.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA20748 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:29:47 -0500 Received: (from frogfarm@localhost) by yakko.cs.wmich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23947 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:30:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:30:19 -0500 From: damaged justice To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] region coding covered under 17USC1201? Message-ID: <20000225133019.A23867@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> References: <20000225095446.A19613@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Quoting Lewis E Wolfgang (wolfgang@sdrm.org): > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > Question: Is region coding a technical measure protected under 17USC1201? > > > > The reason I ask is, if region coding were _not_ protected, couldn't it be > > argued that a "commercially significant purpose" of DeCSS is to play DVDs > > from other regions? Because CSS licensees are required to implement > > region coding, they have created a legitimate commercial need for such a > > tool. > > If region coding were protected, why haven't various commercial > vendors of "upgrade modules" for DVD players been prosecuted? > > As a point of reference, these modules are available from several > vendors (typically European) for most of the name brand home DVD > players. They disable region coding, allow playback of either PAL > or NTSC format, disable the dreaded Macrovision and remove Pin-code > locks. Several other features/impediments that I don't understand > may also be altered. > > Could it be that DCCA considers these modules legal under fair use, > or that it doesn't want a wave of world-wide bad press regarding > region coding being illegal in and of itself? http://www.nerd-out.com/apex/ The Apex AD-600A has been getting quite the word-of-mouth sales promotion. Its limited MP3 playback capability aside, pressing a certain sequence on the remote brings up a menu: http://www.nerd-out.com/apex/Secret_Menu/secret_menu.html Liability and licensing aside, the ability to remove arbitrary restrictions on normal/home/fair use is of value to consumers. Newer firmware revisions do not respond to the same key sequence, but APex employees confirm the "secret menu" still exists -- they just can't tell you where. Someone will no doubt discover it again and post the results -- but it boggles the mind that this sort of thing even exists in the first place, if all DVD licensees were afraid that CCA would be breaking down their door, revoking their license, confiscating goods, what have you. And who but the most villainously hypocritical cannot admire the sense of humor behind... "You Should Not Be Here." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 14:17:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA31367 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:17:34 -0500 Received: from web503.mail.yahoo.com (web503.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.70]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA31319 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:17:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 5223 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Feb 2000 19:18:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20000225191811.5222.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web503.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:18:11 PST Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:18:11 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Perhaps Kaplan went too far in his "balancing" theory weighing the First Amendment vs. Copyright. While it is true that courts have rejected many First Amendment challenges to federal copyright powers, the Supreme Court has been careful to note that in doing so, the deciding criterion was if the speech denied sale-rights and financial interests verses merely communicating ideas and concepts. They have always drawn a clear line that "an idea or concept" must be protected. DeCSS implements an idea. The First Amendment denies Congress authority to give insights from the science of cryptanalysis a special status among concepts and thereby prohibit free exchange of ideas within this topic. If DeCSS is intended for 'fair use' copying that does not cause financial loss, then a law that prohibits it's non-commercial distribution overreaches the bounds of the Copyright power. Aside from the 1201(a)(2) law, it's foundation as a tool for 'fair use' is well established by alalogy to the Sony v. Universal Studio case. ------------ Here's an example of the Supreme Court's careful reasoning regarding First Amendment limitations on Copyright. In this case they denied a news outlet first amendment protection to broadcast, without paying, the entire 15 second performance of the petitioner's 'human canonball' act. US Supreme Court: ZACCHINI v. SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING CO. 433 U.S. 562 (1977) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=433&page=562 "There is no doubt that entertainment, as well as news, enjoys First Amendment protection. ... But it is important to note that neither the public nor respondent will be deprived of the benefit of petitioner's performance as long as his commercial stake in his act is appropriately recognized.Petitioner does not seek to enjoin the broadcast of his performance; he simply wants to be paid for it." Footnote 13: "We note that Federal District Courts have rejected First Amendment challenges to the federal copyright law on the ground that "no restraint [has been] placed on the use of an idea or concept." United States v Bodin, 375 F Supp 1265, 1267 (WD Okla 1974). See also Walt Disney Productions v Air Pirates, 345 F Supp 108, 115-116 (ND Cal 1972) (citing Nimmer, Does Copyright Abridge The First Amendment Guarantees of Free Speech and Press?, 17 UCLA L Rev 1180 (1970), who argues that copyright law does not abridge the First Amendment because it does not restrain the communication of ideas or concepts)" ----------- Another cite is: U.S. Supreme Court BAKER v. SELDEN, 101 U.S. 99 (1879) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=101&page=99 "The copyright of a work on mathematical science cannot give to the author an exclusive right to the methods of operation which he propounds, or to the diagrams which he employs to explain them, so as to prevent an engineer from using them whenever occasion requires." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 14:21:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA32291 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:21:58 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA32287 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:21:53 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12OQJv-000Hf4-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:22:35 +0100 Subject: Re: Devil's Advocate on Re: [dvd-discuss] region coding covered under To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Fri, 25 Feb 100 20:22:35 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200002251756.JAA13739@ns1.filetron.com> from "Rares Marian" at Feb 25, 0 09:56:38 am From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Region code help w/ these issues: > 1. Cultural editing of content. Different markets different values. > 2. Scalping cuts down the revenue received because the scalpers make huge > profits from few buyers. > 3. Scheduling of release. Must create proper drool atmosphere before > release into a market and must also make quick decisions about > failures and successes in different markets plus it isn't very > easy to just send more tapes. > > That's what you have to fight. I'll take a shot: 1. That's a perfectly good reason for content varying in discs sold in different regions, but not for preventing customers from buying their preferred variant from a region they don't live in. For one thing they could be expatriots wanting content from their home countries. As an aside: In this age of cheap and easy communication and travel there is constant talk of globalisation and lowering government-imposed barriers to free trade. Are they to be replaced by corporate-imposed barriers? 2. I don't know what "scalping" is in this context, sorry. 3. These problems exist in every business that crosses national and cultural boundaries. Every other business manages to deal with it without imposing technological barriers to free trade. Why should there be an exemption for movies? Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 14:38:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03280 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:38:57 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03276 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:38:55 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA04205 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:39:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B6DA40.94E7DA40@cdpage.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:38:40 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DDanger Will Robinson is the decryption mechanism within the hardware? References: <200002232235.OAA13995@ns1.filetron.com> <20000225125656.S28173@nacs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > I'm not certain this is true. Actually, I highly doubt that it is true that > all DVD hardware has CSS decryption software within it. All console players > (as in the type that looks like a stereo component that you hook to your > a/v system) certainly do, but if CSS decryption was part of the hardware in a > computer DVD drive, we would not be here. Here's some questions to ask > yourself: A "DVD player" can be either hardware or software. In a DVD PC, a DVD player is a software emulation of a standalone player. This article may help explain how CSS works in a DVD PC. http://www.emedialive.com/cdrompro/1296CP/standard12.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 15:09:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11476 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:09:03 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11459 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:09:01 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7A2F076F4; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:10:11 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DDanger Will Robinson is the decryption mechanism within the hardware? Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:40:12 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002232235.OAA13995@ns1.filetron.com> <20000225125656.S28173@nacs.net> In-Reply-To: <20000225125656.S28173@nacs.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022514101100.27916@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Jason M. Felice wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:35:59PM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > > Okay this could suck. Then that would prove DeCSS is circumvention and now we know why demonstrating is bad. The mechanism to decrypt is already available in the machine. > > > > I'm not certain this is true. Actually, I highly doubt that it is true that > all DVD hardware has CSS decryption software within it. All console players > (as in the type that looks like a stereo component that you hook to your > a/v system) certainly do, but if CSS decryption was part of the hardware in a > computer DVD drive, we would not be here. Here's some questions to ask > yourself: > > 1) If CSS decryption is in the player, why would we have bothered to create > DeCSS/css-auth? > 2) Why would we have access to the encrypted stream? It would seem to me > that the player should have not let us read those sectors unless we > authenticated with it, then it would provide them unencrypted. > 3) If CSS decryption is in the player, why would we need css-auth to > view them under Linux? We'd only have to authenticate with the hardware, > and doing so means this case wouldn't be about "CSS circumvention" but > "some such authentication method circumvention." CSS player verification requires a player key that comes from either the hardware of a console player, or directly from the code of the software player. This key must match one of 200 that are on the DVD. DeCSS initially had only the Xing player's key which they found (by reverse engineering) was not stored in a secure manner. Since then, with the knowledge of the CSS algorithm, various cryptological attacks have been made on CSS and have turned up all 200 keys (I think). I'm not sure what keys DeCSS has in it. I know css-auth is supposed to have the keys to play all DVDs on the market currently. I think the idea that DeCSS circumvents the access controls is that to have "authority" to play a DVD, you must provide a valid player key so that the MPAA knows that you will have a difficult time intercepting the unincrypted stream. It might be worth looking through the MPAA's license with DVD CCA and DVD CCA's licenses with player manufacurers to get the details of how exactly the "authority" is worded. > Now, can anyone confirm that for sure? I did my best. I'm probably not the most qualified person though so if I made any mistakes I'm sure someone will correct me. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Under deadline pressure for the next week. If you want something, it can wait. Unless it's blind screaming paroxysmally hedonistic... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 15:14:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12616 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:14:13 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12593 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:14:11 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA20288 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:14:54 -0600 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:14:54 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000225141453.A20100@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200002241513.HAA18601@ns1.filetron.com> <20000224105621.S23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000224105621.S23265@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:56:21AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Actually, I think it'd be informative to explore comparisons between DVD and > video game consoles. As this discussion progresses, it's beginning to sound > more and more like there's no real difference. > > If we can show that technologically there is no hard line between the two, then > I'd say the recent Connectix/Sony case would apply here. > Here's an interesting product to look at to help this argument: http://www.digitalleisure.com/pr991119.html Basically, it's a sequel to the old "Dragon's Lair" arcade game that you can _PLAY_ on any dvd player using the remote control. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 15:19:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA14332 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:19:36 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA14329 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:19:35 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.17) with ESMTP id PAA19981 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:20:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id PAA03095; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:20:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:20:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002252020.PAA03095@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD development process, in brief In-Reply-To: <20000225131011.U28173@nacs.net> References: <200002241727.JAA02823@ns1.filetron.com> <20000225131011.U28173@nacs.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jason M. Felice writes: > Anything else would be laughably false. What did they write the language > in? C? Assembly? C was originally designed to be the 'portable assembler'. > (A was the assembler, B was the next try, C was the succesful one). Actually, 'B' was an interpreted, cut-down version of a language called BCPL, and 'C' was an improved language with a richer type system and a native compiler. Dennis Ritchie's home page, which is at http://plan9.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ has a lot more information on this stuff for folks with an interest... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 15:45:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA19037 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:45:08 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA19025 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:45:05 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08886 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:44:10 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:44:10 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000225154410.W28173@nacs.net> References: <200002241513.HAA18601@ns1.filetron.com> <20000224105621.S23265@linuxpower.org> <20000225141453.A20100@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000225141453.A20100@thud.reric.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 02:14:54PM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:56:21AM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > Actually, I think it'd be informative to explore comparisons between DVD and > > video game consoles. As this discussion progresses, it's beginning to sound > > more and more like there's no real difference. > > > > If we can show that technologically there is no hard line between the two, then > > I'd say the recent Connectix/Sony case would apply here. > > > Here's an interesting product to look at to help this argument: > > http://www.digitalleisure.com/pr991119.html > > Basically, it's a sequel to the old "Dragon's Lair" arcade game that you > can _PLAY_ on any dvd player using the remote control. I'm emailing them to ask if it's CSS encrypted. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 25 23:49:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA21703 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:49:30 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA21700 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:49:28 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id A472576F4; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:50:40 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:56:08 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000225191811.5222.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000225191811.5222.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022515341102.27916@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Perhaps Kaplan went too far in his "balancing" theory weighing the > First Amendment vs. Copyright. While it is true that courts have > rejected many First Amendment challenges to federal copyright powers, > the Supreme Court has been careful to note that in doing so, the > deciding criterion was if the speech denied sale-rights and financial > interests verses merely communicating ideas and concepts. They have > always drawn a clear line that "an idea or concept" must be protected. Just to make sure I'm following you, do you mean protected *from* copyright? > DeCSS implements an idea. The First Amendment denies Congress > authority to give insights from the science of cryptanalysis a special > status among concepts and thereby prohibit free exchange of ideas > within this topic. If DeCSS is intended for 'fair use' copying that > does not cause financial loss, then a law that prohibits it's > non-commercial distribution overreaches the bounds of the Copyright > power. Aside from the 1201(a)(2) law, it's foundation as a tool for > 'fair use' is well established by alalogy to the Sony v. Universal > Studio case. Yes. A good quote from Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., " > > ------------ > Here's an example of the Supreme Court's careful reasoning regarding > First Amendment limitations on Copyright. In this case they denied a > news outlet first amendment protection to broadcast, without paying, > the entire 15 second performance of the petitioner's 'human canonball' > act. > > US Supreme Court: > ZACCHINI v. SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING CO. > 433 U.S. 562 (1977) > http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=433&page=562 > > "There is no doubt that entertainment, as well as news, enjoys First > Amendment protection. ... But it is important to note that neither the > public nor respondent will be deprived of the benefit of petitioner's > performance as long as his commercial stake in his act is appropriately > recognized.Petitioner does not seek to enjoin the broadcast of his > performance; he simply wants to be paid for it." > > Footnote 13: > > "We note that Federal District Courts have rejected First Amendment > challenges to the federal copyright law on the ground that "no > restraint [has been] placed on the use of an idea or concept." United > States v Bodin, 375 F Supp 1265, 1267 (WD Okla 1974). See also Walt > Disney Productions v Air Pirates, 345 F Supp 108, 115-116 (ND Cal 1972) > (citing Nimmer, Does Copyright Abridge The First Amendment Guarantees > of Free Speech and Press?, 17 UCLA L Rev 1180 (1970), who argues that > copyright law does not abridge the First Amendment because it does not > restrain the communication of ideas or concepts)" > > ----------- > Another cite is: > > U.S. Supreme Court > BAKER v. SELDEN, 101 U.S. 99 (1879) > http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=101&page=99 > > "The copyright of a work on mathematical science cannot give to the > author an exclusive right to the methods of operation which he > propounds, or to the diagrams which he employs to explain them, so as > to prevent an engineer from using them whenever occasion requires." > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu The opulence of the front office door varies inversely with the fundamental solvency of the firm. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 01:01:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA30366 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:01:04 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA30362 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:01:02 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08317 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:42:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:42:50 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000223155436.A763@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against circumvention? It's in the same spirit of the law, at least, and access control is a new ground and I'm sure there's no precedent. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 09:28:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA23227 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:28:52 -0500 Received: from dial66.roadrunner.com (dial66.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA23216 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:28:48 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by dial66.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA07297 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 07:32:41 -0700 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 07:32:40 -0700 From: root To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000226073240.A7279@orange.fenimore.org> References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net>; from Jason M. Felice on Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:42:50PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think I know what you are getting at here (?). I don't know if you read my earlier posts on this subject, but what I'm contending is that access control is performance control. That isn't really fair use because no one is making any lasting duplicates(*). The issue is muddied by the fact that _public_ performance is in 17 USC 106(4,5,6). I say that at a minimum, _private_ performance belongs in 17 USC 107. I think the line of attack to take here is that speech and listening cannot be seperated, nor can recording and performance. This isn't a statutory principle, but it is definitely a constitutional principle used by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut 382 U.S. 479, 482 (1965); Stanely v.Georgia 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); Martin v. Struthers 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943); Weimann v. Updegraff 344 U.S. 183, 195; and probably the Tinker decision too. This is what I've been calling the right to read. The language used in these cases varies a lot to emphasize different aspects that are pertinent: "right to receive", "may not ... contract the spectrum of avail. knowledge", "right to read", ... I hope I haven't misunderstood what you are driving at. I'm not saying this is done, but I've found that if this is what you are after, then talking about "fair use" only clouds the issue for other people. Partly it is a matter of terminology, but I think there is a larger issue that Congress doesn't understand what it is doing in 106(4,5,6) and 107. Take a look at my posts: Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:26:42 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:08:31 -0700 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:47:11 -0700 Paul Fenimore (*) Not counting the copy in your head. On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense > and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, > but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against > circumvention? > > It's in the same spirit of the law, at least, and access control is a new > ground and I'm sure there's no precedent. > > -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 09:29:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA23250 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:29:15 -0500 Received: from tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts2.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA23243 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:29:13 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.236.58]) by tomts3-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000226142136.JUNM3031.tomts3-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:21:36 -0500 Message-ID: <38B7E2B0.A26BC72@sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:26:56 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > > I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense > and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, > but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against > circumvention? When and if someone is sued under the 'circumvention' prohibition in 1201(a)(1), this argument would be closer to the mark. But the problem is that 1201(a)(1), like (a)(2), and -unlike- 1201(b), require no copyright infringment by the person sued, or any third party. (1201(b) contemplates hypothetical infringement by a third party). I still think you're right, however, that in the case of (a)(1), which prohibits actual circumvention, a defendant (because the accessing is being done by -them-) ought to be able to extend the fair use defence to their actions. It's still difficult to apply a fair use defence to -our- problem, under (a)(2). See below. > It's in the same spirit of the law, at least, and access control is a new > ground and I'm sure there's no precedent. Yes, but using FU in our case requires asserting the logic that we have a right to trafick in a device that allows access, where that access will be done by a hypothetical person who may or may not have the defence of fair use available to them. Think of it this way: a store window in a bookstore is an effective access-prevention device. We're arguing that because we only intend to read the book and make brief 2-sentence quotes out of it - which is protected by fair use - we ought to be able to break into the store to enable access for which fair use will be available to us as a defence. Thus in the same way that 1201 is bad law because it prevents -use- in the first place, let alone "fair" use, the laws against breaking and entering similarly prevent us from making fair use of copyrighted works. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 10:38:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA32709 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:38:51 -0500 Received: from dial160.roadrunner.com (dial160.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.160]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA32691 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:38:45 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by dial160.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA07452 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:42:39 -0700 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:42:39 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000226084239.A7316@dial66.roadrunner.com> References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> <38B7E2B0.A26BC72@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38B7E2B0.A26BC72@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 09:26:56AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 09:26:56AM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > > > > I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense > > and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, > > but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against > > circumvention? > > When and if someone is sued under the 'circumvention' prohibition in > 1201(a)(1), this argument would be closer to the mark. But the problem > is that 1201(a)(1), like (a)(2), and -unlike- 1201(b), require no > copyright infringment by the person sued, or any third party. (1201(b) > contemplates hypothetical infringement by a third party). > > I still think you're right, however, that in the case of (a)(1), which > prohibits actual circumvention, a defendant (because the accessing is > being done by -them-) ought to be able to extend the fair use defence to > their actions. It's still difficult to apply a fair use defence to > -our- problem, under (a)(2). See below. One potential approach to consider might be going after region codes. It isn't clear to me that they will satisfy 1201(c) is court, but if they do, one could argue that region codes "contract the sphere of knowledge" and hamper the learning of natural languages. Language appropriate to those two arguments appears in Griswold, and Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), respectively. One problem with this approach is that I'm not sure if this is an argument against 1201(a)(2) or against putting region codes on disk. Which leads to something I see as still being ambiguous(*). What does "authority" attach to? The disk you bought, or your DVD player? The people who manufacture players are not in general the same people who hold the copyright on the disk, so saying that the authority is attached to the player seems unsupportable. Why then is Congress regulating via (a)(2)? They are assuming: (i) No public domain material will ever be access controlled. (ii) All use of players not license by DCCA will be used to violate the law. But this is crazy. DCCA doesn't hold copyrights, they license a crypto system. > > It's in the same spirit of the law, at least, and access control is a new > > ground and I'm sure there's no precedent. > > Yes, but using FU in our case requires asserting the logic that we have > a right to trafick in a device that allows access, where that access > will be done by a hypothetical person who may or may not have the > defence of fair use available to them. > > Think of it this way: a store window in a bookstore is an effective > access-prevention device. We're arguing that because we only intend to > read the book and make brief 2-sentence quotes out of it - which is > protected by fair use - we ought to be able to break into the store to > enable access for which fair use will be available to us as a defence. > Thus in the same way that 1201 is bad law because it prevents -use- in > the first place, let alone "fair" use, the laws against breaking and > entering similarly prevent us from making fair use of copyrighted works. > > It is precisely because of this argument that I want to explore what the authority attaches to. Paul Fenimore (*) In Kaplan's ruling (is that the right word when an injunction is at issue?) and in 1201, not on dvd-discuss. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 10:53:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01874 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:53:08 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA01871 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:53:06 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.154] (helo=ip154.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12OjXV-00023x-00; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:53:53 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 15:53:01 GMT Message-ID: <38b8f4f4.5840853@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000225171139.3556.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000225171139.3556.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id KAA01872 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:11:39 -0800 (PST), Bryan wrote: >Thanks for the screen shot. It looks like all the functionality is in >the single button called "transfer" which results in files being >"copied/decrypted". > >I guess I need to revise my statement. If the "decrypted" functionality >in this button passes (a)(2), then the "copyied" part (which by itself >doesn't involve access) is allowed by fair use under (c)(1). I'd like to try this on a DVD containing a film that is in the public domain. (If those titles are CSS-protected.) It seems extracting a single VOB of PD material should be allowed. (The merge VOB checkbox is a little unsettling.) MPEG-2 lossy compression still doesn't truly represent/preserve the original PD film, even when decrypted. This is something that should be happening at the Library of Congress. If publishers want to protect anything with encryption, they should be required to deposit a full unprotected copy at the LOC, for that day some 90, 120, or indefinite years hence when the material does enter public domain. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 11:12:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06289 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:12:39 -0500 Received: from dial136.roadrunner.com (dial136.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.136]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06286 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:12:36 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by dial136.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA07563 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:16:31 -0700 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:16:30 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000226091630.A7550@dial160.roadrunner.com> References: <20000225171139.3556.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <38b8f4f4.5840853@mail.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38b8f4f4.5840853@mail.tiac.net>; from Ron Gustavson on Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 03:53:01PM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 03:53:01PM +0000, Ron Gustavson wrote: > This is something that should be happening at the Library of > Congress. If publishers want to protect anything with encryption, > they should be required to deposit a full unprotected copy at > the LOC, for that day some 90, 120, or indefinite years hence when > the material does enter public domain. Same thing goes for source code. There is this large software company that said it "lost" part of the DOS source code when they were sued by Caldera. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 11:48:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA13452 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:48:58 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA13449 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:48:56 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.50] (helo=ip50.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12OkPX-000336-00; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:49:43 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 16:48:49 GMT Message-ID: <38b80335.9490036@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000225171139.3556.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <38b8f4f4.5840853@mail.tiac.net> <20000226091630.A7550@dial160.roadrunner.com> In-Reply-To: <20000226091630.A7550@dial160.roadrunner.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id LAA13450 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:16:30 -0700, Paul wrote: >Same thing goes for source code. There is this large software company >that said it "lost" part of the DOS source code when they were sued by >Caldera. I just noticed on details for "Birth of a Nation" that DVD encoding is all regions, but the edition is region #1. I'm not sure what this means, but will find out. ----------------------- Discographic Information: DVD Encoding: Region All Regions Layers: Single Available subtitles: - Edition Details: • Region 1 encoding (US and Canada only) • Black & White, Digital Sound • Commentary by 24-minute making-of documentary detailing the production of the movie with rare behind-the-scenes footage • ASIN: 6305130949 __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 13:08:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA31610 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:08:55 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA31607 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:08:53 -0500 Received: (qmail 5744 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2000 18:05:09 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2000 18:05:09 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA22724; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:09:39 -0800 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:09:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200002261809.KAA22724@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Questioning Authority (was Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc.) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: >On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 09:26:56AM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: >> "Jason M. Felice" wrote: >> > >> > I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense >> > and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, >> > but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against >> > circumvention? >> >> When and if someone is sued under the 'circumvention' prohibition in >> 1201(a)(1), this argument would be closer to the mark. But the problem >> is that 1201(a)(1), like (a)(2), and -unlike- 1201(b), require no >> copyright infringment by the person sued, or any third party. (1201(b) >> contemplates hypothetical infringement by a third party). >> >> I still think you're right, however, that in the case of (a)(1), which >> prohibits actual circumvention, a defendant (because the accessing is >> being done by -them-) ought to be able to extend the fair use defence to >> their actions. It's still difficult to apply a fair use defence to >> -our- problem, under (a)(2). See below. > >One potential approach to consider might be going after region codes. >It isn't clear to me that they will satisfy 1201(c) is court, but if >they do, one could argue that region codes "contract the sphere of >knowledge" and hamper the learning of natural languages. Language >appropriate to those two arguments appears in Griswold, and Meyer v. >Nebraska (1923), respectively. > >One problem with this approach is that I'm not sure if this is an >argument against 1201(a)(2) or against putting region codes on disk. > >Which leads to something I see as still being ambiguous(*). What does >"authority" attach to? The disk you bought, or your DVD player? The >people who manufacture players are not in general the same people >who hold the copyright on the disk, so saying that the authority >is attached to the player seems unsupportable. Why then is Congress >regulating via (a)(2)? They are assuming: >(i) No public domain material will ever be access controlled. >(ii) All use of players not license by DCCA will be used to violate >the law. But this is crazy. DCCA doesn't hold copyrights, they >license a crypto system. > >> > It's in the same spirit of the law, at least, and access control is a new >> > ground and I'm sure there's no precedent. >> >> Yes, but using FU in our case requires asserting the logic that we have >> a right to trafick in a device that allows access, where that access >> will be done by a hypothetical person who may or may not have the >> defence of fair use available to them. >> >> Think of it this way: a store window in a bookstore is an effective >> access-prevention device. We're arguing that because we only intend to >> read the book and make brief 2-sentence quotes out of it - which is >> protected by fair use - we ought to be able to break into the store to >> enable access for which fair use will be available to us as a defence. >> Thus in the same way that 1201 is bad law because it prevents -use- in >> the first place, let alone "fair" use, the laws against breaking and >> entering similarly prevent us from making fair use of copyrighted works. >> >> > >It is precisely because of this argument that I want to explore what >the authority attaches to. Well there's two things I can say right now about this: First, the above argument is flawed. A store window consists of a limited access control system. You buy the book, no more access control. You buy the DVD, the access control system still stands. You can't play it on certain systems. You can't study it completely. Note the part about studying. I'm sick and tired of the bullshit elitism that says that because you have Ivy league colleges to study at, doing things otherwise is somehow unnatural, deviant, immoral, or dysfunctional. The second issue is: If authority is attached to the player thenm it's like the argument about the store window, flawed. If they argue it's attached to the player, that argument needs to be shot down. If they argue it's attached to the disc, then fair use kicks in. Lose-lose situation for MPAA on this one. > >Paul Fenimore > >(*) In Kaplan's ruling (is that the right word when an injunction is >at issue?) and in 1201, not on dvd-discuss. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 13:13:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA32567 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:13:49 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA32563 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:13:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 5978 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2000 18:10:04 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2000 18:10:04 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA23343; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:14:33 -0800 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:14:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200002261814.KAA23343@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) wrote: >On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:11:39 -0800 (PST), Bryan wrote: > >>Thanks for the screen shot. It looks like all the functionality is in >>the single button called "transfer" which results in files being >>"copied/decrypted". >> >>I guess I need to revise my statement. If the "decrypted" functionality >>in this button passes (a)(2), then the "copyied" part (which by itself >>doesn't involve access) is allowed by fair use under (c)(1). > >I'd like to try this on a DVD containing a film that is >in the public domain. (If those titles are CSS-protected.) > >It seems extracting a single VOB of PD material should be >allowed. (The merge VOB checkbox is a little unsettling.) >MPEG-2 lossy compression still doesn't truly represent/preserve >the original PD film, even when decrypted. > >This is something that should be happening at the Library of >Congress. If publishers want to protect anything with encryption, >they should be required to deposit a full unprotected copy at >the LOC, for that day some 90, 120, or indefinite years hence when >the material does enter public domain. Yeah, way to go! Actually this could be awesome. If a few libraries got hijacked for the originals, then public concern for libraries could rise which would have an welcomed adverse effect against the library censorship craziness going on now. > >__________no-∞-do__________ Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 13:17:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA00539 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:17:43 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA00535 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:17:40 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9EAF676EA; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 12:18:55 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 12:06:16 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> <38B7E2B0.A26BC72@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <38B7E2B0.A26BC72@sympatico.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022612185500.01057@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Ian Hay wrote: > Yes, but using FU in our case requires asserting the logic that we have > a right to trafick in a device that allows access, where that access > will be done by a hypothetical person who may or may not have the > defence of fair use available to them. > > Think of it this way: a store window in a bookstore is an effective > access-prevention device. We're arguing that because we only intend to > read the book and make brief 2-sentence quotes out of it - which is > protected by fair use - we ought to be able to break into the store to > enable access for which fair use will be available to us as a defence. > Thus in the same way that 1201 is bad law because it prevents -use- in > the first place, let alone "fair" use, the laws against breaking and > entering similarly prevent us from making fair use of copyrighted works. Well, I think your analogy is a little off. We want to be able to traffic in something that breaks windows... That streaches the analogy a bit far. Really what we would need to argue to get fair use considered under 1201(a)(2) is to make the argument that by banning distribution of circumvention tools, it *effectively* (not legally) blocks the fair use permitted in 1201(a)(1). Basically, we just say that 1201(a)(2) is overly broad because it makes it impossible to excersize fair use without creating your own means to do the circumvention. I don't know if the judge will be persuaded of this, or if he will care. We'll need to convince him that it really matters. Appeals courts are probably more open to this kind of argument, but I hope we won't have to loose the case just to get this to work. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Nine megs for the secretaries fair, Seven megs for the hackers scarce, Five megs for the grads in smoky lairs, Three megs for system source; One disk to rule them all, One disk to bind them, One disk to hold the files And in the darkness grind 'em. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 13:38:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA03444 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:38:31 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA03415 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:38:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 14202 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Feb 2000 18:39:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20000226183916.14201.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:39:16 PST Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:39:16 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Steven Barker wrote: > Just to make sure I'm following you, do you mean protected *from* > copyright? Yes, sort of. The MPAA through it's copyrighting of encrypted movies and 17 USC 1201 has gained monopoly control of more than Congress can give them. Another way to look at this is that M.O.R.E. is effectively denied _their_ "exclusive right" to DeCSS, simply because _the ideas_ therein were prior art. M.O.R.E. did nothing other than learn the facts and ideas of the particular encryption scheme and create their own version of it. They are entitled to full copyright protection for their original contributions. > Yes. A good quote from Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. > Co., " U.S. Supreme Court Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co. 499 U.S. 340 (1991) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=340 Here the court made some statements that can be used to find limitations on Congressional Power: "Originality is a constitutional requirement. The source of Congress' power to enact copyright laws is Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to 'secur[e] for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.' In two decisions from the late 19th Century - The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879); and Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884) - this Court defined the crucial terms 'authors' and 'writings.' In so doing, the Court made it unmistakably clear that these terms presuppose a degree of originality." Another quote from the same case: "It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not 'some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme.' Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 589 (dissenting opinion). It is, rather, 'the essence of copyright,' ibid. and a constitutional requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' Art. I, 8, cl. 8. Accord, Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975). To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original [499 U.S. 340, 350] expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. Harper & Row, supra, at 556-557. This principle, known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy, applies to all works of authorship. As applied to a factual compilation, assuming the absence of original written expression, only the compiler's selection and arrangement may be protected; the raw facts may be copied at will. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art. This Court has long recognized that the fact/expression dichotomy limits severely the scope of protection in fact-based works. More than a century ago, the Court observed: 'The very object of publishing a book on science or the useful arts is to communicate to the world the useful knowledge which it contains. But this object would be frustrated if the knowledge could not be used without incurring the guilt of piracy of the book.' Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 103 (1880). We reiterated this point in Harper & Row: '[N]o author may copyright facts or ideas. The copyright is limited to those aspects of the work - termed `expression' - that display the stamp of the author's originality. '[C]opyright does not prevent subsequent users from copying from a prior author's work those constituent elements that are not original - for example . . . facts, or materials in the public domain - as long as such use does not unfairly appropriate. the author's original contributions." 471 U.S., at 547-548 (citation omitted)." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 14:42:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA15381 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:42:42 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA15374 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:42:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 2020 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Feb 2000 19:43:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20000226194326.2019.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:43:26 PST Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:43:26 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ian Hay wrote: > I still think you're right, however, that in the case of (a)(1), > which prohibits actual circumvention, a defendant (because the > accessing is being done by -them-) ought to be able to extend the fair > use defence to their actions. It's still difficult to apply a fair > use defence to -our- problem, under (a)(2). See below. Fair use is precisely why Congress authorized the Librarian of Congress to define exceptions to (a)(1). It appears, however that no such exceptions are built into the law for (a)(2). I think this IS a potential attacking point against (a)(2). The 'to promote the public good' interpretation (found throughout Supreme Court precedent) of the copyright clause must place limits on Congressional power. I think it is reasonble to call this limitation by the name 'right of fair use', although another name might be better to differenitate the statory limitations on exclusive rights given to copyright holders from the corresponding _Constitutional_ limitations. Until the DMCA, Congress never really tried to push the limits of their authority under the Copyright clause, so Courts have never had to find this boundary. Courts have clearly recognized that some boundary exists though. > Yes, but using FU in our case requires asserting the logic that we > have a right to trafick in a device that allows access, where that > access will be done by a hypothetical person who may or may not have > the defence of fair use available to them. There is probably a due process right at stake. You should be free to use tools that might allow you to break the law if there are legitimate uses of these. > Think of it this way: a store window in a bookstore is an effective > access-prevention device. We're arguing that because we only intend > to read the book and make brief 2-sentence quotes out of it - which is > protected by fair use - we ought to be able to break into the store > to enable access for which fair use will be available to us as a > defence. Could you do this if YOU owned the store? What if you owned the book and the store owner refused to cooperate to give it to you? What if you could remove the window, take the book, and replace the window without causing financial loss to the owner? What if you persuaded someone inside the window to hold the book up to the window so you could read it? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 14:50:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17110 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:50:41 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA17107 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:50:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 10014 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Feb 2000 19:51:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20000226195127.10013.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:51:27 PST Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:51:27 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- root wrote: > I think I know what you are getting at here (?). I don't know if you > read my earlier posts on this subject, but what I'm contending is > that access control is performance control. I think this is a very good way to look at it. > I say that at a minimum, _private_ performance belongs in 17 USC 107. I'll try to dig up some court cases to this effect. I'm sure they exist. The worry is that _statutory_ defenses aren't going to help us anymore, though. As you noted, question is: could Congress include private performance under the exclusive rights of copyright protections given to the author. I hope not. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 16:44:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA08983 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 16:44:20 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA08956 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 16:44:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 12451 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Feb 2000 21:45:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000226214505.12450.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:45:05 PST Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:45:05 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Performance To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's an interesting opinion regarding limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright holders. The crux of this opinion is that the extent of the 'exclusive rights' to the copyright holder are limited. Even without citing 'fair use' as an affirmative defense, the copyright holder has no cause of action unless one of their 'exclusive rights' is violated. Furthermore, private performance and/or overseas performance are NOT included in these. Perhaps this would imply the permission required 'with authority of the copyright holder' required to find circumvention under (a)(2) cannot be Constitutionally required in cases where it is not the copyright holder's to give. This is different from 'Fair Use' as a defense. ------------------ DANJAQ, S.A. V. MGM/UA COMMUNS., CO., 773 F. Supp. 194 (C.D. CA 1991) http://www.jurisline.com "The exclusive right of the copyright owner under Section 106 is not to authorize every performance of a motion picture, but only public performances and, because the section is enacted against a general background presumption of non-extraterritoriality, only in the United States. " "The second ground, which easily lends itself to resolution on a motion to dismiss, rests on the undisputed axiom that the [F. Supp. 203] United States copyright laws do not operate extraterritorially. See, e.g., American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356, 53 L. Ed. 826, 29 S. Ct. 511 (1909) (per Holmes, J.); Filmvideo Releasing Corp. v. Hastings, 668 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1981); see generally 3 Nimmer on Copyright, supra, at § 17.02. Even a public performance of a copyrighted film overseas does not violate the U.S. Copyright Act. It may, perhaps, violate the copyright protection laws of the country of performance, but not those of the United States. Cf. Robert Stigwood Group v. O'Reilly, 530 F.2d 1096, 1101 (2d Cir. 1976) ('The Canadian performances, while they may have been torts in Canada, were not torts here.'). " "It is simply not possible to draw a principled distinction between a private performance of a motion picture in the United States and a public performance overseas. The copyright owner is not vested with the exclusive right either to do or to authorize private or overseas performances. Even as a matter of formal statutory construction, the exemptions from liability for both private and overseas performances arise as negative inferences from the text of Section 106. Private performances of motion pictures are not actionable because the Congress had failed to include such performances among the list of the copyright owner's exclusive rights. In the same manner, overseas performances are not actionable because the Congress has not chosen to enforce the U.S. copyright laws extraterritorially. " __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 18:29:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA28848 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 18:29:25 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA28845 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 18:29:23 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA21066 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 15:28:39 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29717; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:52:51 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Programs sharing information Date: 26 Feb 2000 14:51:45 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 38 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <899le1$t0k$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000224055307.17669.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000224055307.17669.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com>, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Is anyone prepared to argue that the encrypted content burned onto the > DVD's during manufacturing was NOT created by a 'program'? Sure, I'll argue that, for the sake of debate, if you think it'll raise the level of discussion. (Why not?) The contrarian position is easy: It's a movie, not a program. I rest my case. :-) Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that, because we don't live in a world with a strictly von Neumann-ish segregation between program (`actor') and unexecutable data (`acted-upon'). In real life, the lines are a bit blurry. But I'll argue that the data on a DVD disk functions primarily like unexecutable data, and only incidentally and secondarily takes on a few program-like qualities from time to time, so treating it as a program would really be stretching. Here's a test: When you mount the DVD disc (after all, it's just a filesystem -- sometimes an encrypted filesystem, but a filesystem nonetheless), take a look at the resulting files (vob's?). Do they have the executable bit set? If you try to run them (try Windows 'Run as' or just executing them from the command line), does it work? Here's another issue to nail down: What test are you proposing to distinguish program from non-program? What _wouldn't_ count as a program under your test? Would your test treat a web page in HTML as a program? Would your test treat a textual rendering of a recipe (`add 1 cup flour; bake until done') as a program for the purposes of the DMCA? Speaking as a devil's advocate, these are the type of questions I would start to raise. Comments? -- David (just trying on arguments for size; I don't necessarily actually believe any of the above) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 18:30:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA29262 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 18:30:59 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA29258 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 18:30:56 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA21076 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 15:30:13 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29744; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:54:25 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Programs sharing information Date: 26 Feb 2000 14:54:16 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 12 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <899lio$t1f$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000224055307.17669.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000224055307.17669.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com>, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Is anyone prepared to argue that the encrypted content burned onto the > DVD's during manufacturing was NOT created by a 'program'? Oops, disregard my previous email. I misunderstood your question: I read too quickly and thought you were asking whether anyone was prepared to argue that the content itself is not a program (oops), rather than about how it was created. Sorry about that, folks. -- David From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 19:42:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA11376 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:42:52 -0500 Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts1.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.139]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA11354 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:42:50 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.224.9]) by tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000227004307.DTMU13123.tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:43:07 -0500 Message-ID: <38B8745F.404A40BF@sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:48:31 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. References: <20000226194326.2019.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Think of it this way: a store window in a bookstore is an effective > > access-prevention device. We're arguing that because we only intend > > to read the book and make brief 2-sentence quotes out of it - which > is > > protected by fair use - we ought to be able to break into the store > > to enable access for which fair use will be available to us as a > > defence. > > Could you do this if YOU owned the store? Not if there there were a law against it. To back-apply the analogy, there IS a law against it in this case. It is called 1201(a)(1) and (2). > What if you owned the book > and the store owner refused to cooperate to give it to you? He doesn't have to under 1201(a). > What if you > could remove the window, take the book, and replace the window without > causing financial loss to the owner? It would be illegal if there were a law against it. There is. It's called 1201(a). > What if you persuaded someone > inside the window to hold the book up to the window so you could read > it? That would be illegal if there were a law like 1201(a) that applied to such situations. Do you get what I'm saying? Your examples are excellent in that they demonstrate with perfect clarity how grievously -unfair- 1201(a)(1) and (2) are. But -everyone here already knows this-. Unfair != Unconstitutional. I'll make it plain again - I don't think we are going to be successful in arguing that 1201(a)(2) ought to be judicially nulled because it prevents 'use', and by extension 'fair use'. So, where does this leave us? We argue either/both (1) that the fact situation at issue falls within a statutory exception that -does- apply to 1201(a)(2), or (2) that 1201(a)(2) is unconstitutional, and ought to be judicially nulled. (I do like the 'promote the public good' argument as a constitutional-side approach. We need to flush that out some more, but without this dang 'fair use' language that a judge will simply use to point us back to s.107.) -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 19:57:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA16433 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:57:01 -0500 Received: from mason2.gmu.edu (mason2.gmu.edu [129.174.1.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA16430 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:56:59 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by mason2.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA16508 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:57:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:57:47 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin X-Sender: jerwin@mason2.gmu.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Programs sharing information In-Reply-To: <899le1$t0k$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 26 Feb 2000, David A. Wagner wrote: > Here's a test: When you mount the DVD disc (after all, it's just a > filesystem -- sometimes an encrypted filesystem, but a filesystem > nonetheless), take a look at the resulting files (vob's?). Do they > have the executable bit set? If you try to run them (try Windows > 'Run as' or just executing them from the command line), does it work? > I have a java application to access CVS. Most people would regard it as being a program. However, I cannot simply run it; instead, the program is run through a java runtime environment. I do have an shortcut that automatically loads the resulting program. Simililarly, I can configure my computer to load the "Matrix" program using the ATI DVD "runtime environment". On the Macintosh, at least for a while, Desk Accessories and Applications had different Creator/Type bits. Desk Accessories (clocks, calculators, adress books, etc) couldn't be run directly-- They had to be stashed in the system file, and were acessed through an "apple menu" that was prepended to every applications menubar. No executable bit-- but quite possibly a program. Are interpreted basic sources "programs"? What about pcode (Pascal)? --Jeremy Erwin jerwin@gmu.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 26 23:25:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA31692 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:25:27 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA31689 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:25:24 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id EF5FE76EA; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:26:37 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 20:35:28 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000226183916.14201.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000226183916.14201.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022622263600.01400@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- Steven Barker wrote: > > Just to make sure I'm following you, do you mean protected *from* > > copyright? > > Yes, sort of. The MPAA through it's copyrighting of encrypted movies > and 17 USC 1201 has gained monopoly control of more than Congress can > give them. Another way to look at this is that M.O.R.E. is effectively > denied _their_ "exclusive right" to DeCSS, simply because _the ideas_ > therein were prior art. M.O.R.E. did nothing other than learn the facts > and ideas of the particular encryption scheme and create their own > version of it. They are entitled to full copyright protection for their > original contributions. That is what I thought. I had at first misread your earlier post (which has been snipped) and had thought you were saying that copyright protected *against* certain actions, rather than those actions were protected against copyright. Just wanted everything to be clear about that. I don't think that the issue of MoRE's copyright of DeCSS is at all significant here. I think you are confusing the issue now. MoRE does own the copyright to DeCSS and they license it under the GPL. > > Yes. A good quote from Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. > > Co., " > > U.S. Supreme Court > Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co. > 499 U.S. 340 (1991) > http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=340 > > Here the court made some statements that can be used to find > limitations on Congressional Power: > > "Originality is a constitutional requirement. The source of Congress' > power to enact copyright laws is Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the > Constitution, which authorizes Congress to 'secur[e] for limited Times > to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.' In > two decisions from the late 19th Century - The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 > U.S. 82 (1879); and Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. > 53 > (1884) - this Court defined the crucial terms 'authors' and 'writings.' > In so doing, the Court made it unmistakably clear that these terms > presuppose a degree of originality." > > Another quote from the same case: > > "It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may > be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has > correctly observed, however, this is not 'some unforeseen byproduct of > a > statutory scheme.' Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 589 (dissenting opinion). > It is, rather, 'the essence of copyright,' ibid. and a constitutional > requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the > labor of authors, but '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful > Arts.' This last sentence is the quote I was looking for. My email was not supposed to send when it did. I'm not exactly sure how to save a draft message in kmail, and when I tried it must have sent. It shows how the Supreme Court feels about what exactly the bounds are on copyright. >Art. I, 8, cl. 8. Accord, Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. > Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975). To this end, copyright assures authors > the right to their original [499 U.S. 340, 350] expression, but > encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information > conveyed by a work. Harper & Row, supra, at 556-557. This principle, > known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy, applies to > all works of authorship. As applied to a factual compilation, assuming > the absence of original written expression, only the compiler's > selection and arrangement may be protected; the raw facts may be copied > at will. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means > by which copyright advances the progress of science and art. > > This Court has long recognized that the fact/expression dichotomy > limits severely the scope of protection in fact-based works. More than > a century ago, the Court observed: 'The very object of publishing a > book on science or the useful arts is to communicate to the world the > useful knowledge which it contains. But this object would be frustrated > if the knowledge could not be used without incurring the guilt of > piracy of the book.' Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 103 (1880). We > reiterated this point in Harper & Row: > > '[N]o author may copyright facts or ideas. The copyright is > limited to those aspects of the work - termed `expression' - that > display the stamp of the author's originality. > > '[C]opyright does not prevent subsequent users from copying > from a prior author's work those constituent elements that are not > original - for example . . . facts, or materials in the public domain - > as long as such use does not unfairly appropriate. the author's > original contributions." 471 U.S., at 547-548 (citation omitted)." Thanks though for giving all this additional material. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Creating computer software is always a demanding and painstaking process -- an exercise in logic, clear expression, and almost fanatical attention to detail. It requires intelligence, dedication, and an enormous amount of hard work. But, a certain amount of unpredictable and often unrepeatable inspiration is what usually makes the difference between adequacy and excellence. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 02:51:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA30274 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 02:51:42 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA30260 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 02:51:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 28736 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Feb 2000 07:52:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20000227075229.28735.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:52:29 PST Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:52:29 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Steven Barker wrote: > On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Steven Barker wrote: > > > Just to make sure I'm following you, do you mean protected *from* > > > copyright? > > > > Yes, sort of. The MPAA through it's copyrighting of encrypted > > movies and 17 USC 1201 has gained monopoly control of more than > > Congress can give them. Another way to look at this is that M.O.R.E. > > is effectively denied _their_ "exclusive right" to DeCSS, simply > > because _the ideas_ therein were prior art. M.O.R.E. did nothing > > other than learn the facts and ideas of the particular encryption > > scheme and create their own version of it. They are entitled to > > full copyright protection for their original contributions. > > That is what I thought. I had at first misread your earlier post > (which has been snipped) and had thought you were saying that > copyright protected *against* certain actions, rather than those > actions were protected against copyright. Just wanted everything to > be clear about that. I don't think that the issue of MoRE's > copyright of DeCSS is at all significant here. I think you > are confusing the issue now. MoRE does own the copyright to DeCSS > and they license it under the GPL. So if MoRE's copyright is in full force, then MoRE's permission (which is already given under the GPL) is all that is needed to distribute DeCSS, right. Instead, Congress has effectively given this control to the MPAA, instead of MoRE, and this is a problem. 1201(a)(2) creates a patent-like monopoly over ideas. This might be OK if it WAS a patent (which has other tradeoffs), but it isn't. Congress has effectively created a new form of IP that is stronger than a copyright, since it covers ideas, but is easier to get than a patent, since it doesn't need to be disclosed and is claimed without following the patent process. I think this exceeds Congressional power and does a disservice to the progress of computer science. The whole scientific field of cryptanalysis has been harmed. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 03:51:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA10103 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 03:51:35 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA10074 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 03:51:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 7826 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Feb 2000 08:52:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20000227085222.7825.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:52:22 PST Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:52:22 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] civil remedies & prior restraint To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It appears that 17 USC 1204(b)(1) explicitly and specifically prohibits temporary injuctions that impose prior restraints on free speech. Here's what Kaplan said in his memorandum opinion: "Nevertheless, this Court assumes for purposes of this motion, although it does not decide, that even the executable code is sufficiently expressive to merit some constitutional protection. " He went on: "In determining the constitutionality of governmental restriction on speech, courts traditionally have balanced the public interest in the restriction against the public interest in the kind of speech at issue. This approach seeks to determine, in light of the goals of the First Amendment, how much protection the speech at issue merits. It then examines the underlying rationale for the challenged regulation and assesses how best to accommodate the relative weights of the interests in free speech interest and the regulation. " It seems pretty clear that he was unaware of 1204(b)(1) that prohibits prior restraints if any 1st Amendment issue is at stake. Here's the law: -------------------------------------------- http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1203.html Sec. 1203. Civil remedies (a) Civil Actions. - Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for such violation. (b) Powers of the Court. - In an action brought under subsection (a), the court - (1) may grant temporary and permanent injunctions on such terms as it deems reasonable to prevent or restrain a violation, but in no event shall impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st amendment to the Constitution; __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 04:05:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA11563 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 04:05:51 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA11560 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 04:05:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 16003 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Feb 2000 09:06:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20000227090638.16002.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 01:06:38 PST Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 01:06:38 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Court Schedule To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Does anybody know what the timeline is for the two cases? What happens next? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 09:29:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA11691 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 09:29:40 -0500 Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts1.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.139]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA11677 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 09:29:38 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.236.195]) by tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000227142956.GRFC13123.tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 09:29:56 -0500 Message-ID: <38B9362C.5E78B34@sympatico.ca> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 09:35:24 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Court Schedule References: <20000227090638.16002.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Does anybody know what the timeline is for the two cases? What happens next? The EFF has to decide whether (a) they are going to appeal the injunction, or (b) proceed to trial. I believe it's in the EFF's court. As for (a), I don't know what the time limit is on appealing injunctions. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 11:26:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30690 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:26:10 -0500 Received: from dial146.roadrunner.com (dial146.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30683 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:26:04 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by dial146.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA10351 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 09:30:16 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 09:30:16 -0700 From: root To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Message-ID: <20000227093016.A10235@orange.fenimore.org> References: <20000227075229.28735.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000227075229.28735.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:52:29PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:52:29PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > So if MoRE's copyright is in full force, then MoRE's permission (which > is already given under the GPL) is all that is needed to distribute > DeCSS, right. Instead, Congress has effectively given this control to > the MPAA, instead of MoRE, and this is a problem. 1201(a)(2) creates a > patent-like monopoly over ideas. This might be OK if it WAS a patent > (which has other tradeoffs), but it isn't. > > Congress has effectively created a new form of IP that is stronger than > a copyright, since it covers ideas, but is easier to get than a patent, > since it doesn't need to be disclosed and is claimed without following > the patent process. I think this exceeds Congressional power and does a > disservice to the progress of computer science. The whole scientific > field of cryptanalysis has been harmed. Oooh. This is good. Who has "authority", not to play DVDs, but to distribute the players. I like this. Kaplan's ruling is very confused on this matter. The MPAA/DCCA must either argue about the "purpose" of DeCSS, or claim that this public law is actually their private law. To address the issue of authority to distribute players, I think we will really need to carefully address the issues of why CSS is not a copy prevention system and why DeCSS is not a copying device. Can I rephrase your point (partly) as a question? "Where does 1201(a)(2) derive its constitutional basis?" It certainly doesn't look like the copyright clause because decryptors have legitimate uses that Congress is _forbidden_ from regulating (public domain for one), if the claim is Congress' patent power, then that will fail in court, if necessary and proper, then they can't control source code. Could you explain in more detail why the MPAA in particular is in effective control over trafficking in play-back devices? (I mean as a matter of law, not economics, or is it the same thing in this case?) Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 11:41:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00738 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:41:43 -0500 Received: from dial146.roadrunner.com (dial146.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00705 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:41:39 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by dial146.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA10397 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 09:45:53 -0700 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 09:45:52 -0700 From: root To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] civil remedies & prior restraint Message-ID: <20000227094552.B10235@orange.fenimore.org> References: <20000227085222.7825.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000227085222.7825.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 12:52:22AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Will the courts hold that because 2600, et al. have already published, this is not a case of prior restraint? Paul Fenimore On Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 12:52:22AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > It appears that 17 USC 1204(b)(1) explicitly and specifically prohibits > temporary injuctions that impose prior restraints on free speech. > > Here's what Kaplan said in his memorandum opinion: > > "Nevertheless, this Court assumes for purposes of this motion, although > it does not decide, that even the executable code is sufficiently > expressive to merit some constitutional protection. " > > He went on: > > "In determining the constitutionality of governmental restriction on > speech, courts traditionally have balanced the public interest in the > restriction against the public interest in the kind of speech at issue. > This approach seeks to determine, in light of the goals of the First > Amendment, how much protection the speech at issue merits. It then > examines the underlying rationale for the challenged regulation and > assesses how best to accommodate the relative weights of the interests > in free speech interest and the regulation. " > > It seems pretty clear that he was unaware of 1204(b)(1) that prohibits > prior restraints if any 1st Amendment issue is at stake. > > Here's the law: > -------------------------------------------- > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1203.html > Sec. 1203. Civil remedies > > (a) Civil Actions. - Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 > or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States > district court for such violation. > > (b) Powers of the Court. - In an action brought under subsection (a), > the court - > > (1) may grant temporary and permanent injunctions on such terms as it > deems reasonable to prevent or restrain a violation, but in no event > shall impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected > under the 1st amendment to the Constitution; From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 13:46:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23531 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:46:13 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23528 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:46:11 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA28113 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:47:01 -0600 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:47:00 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Message-ID: <20000227124700.A27825@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000227075229.28735.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000227075229.28735.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:52:29PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > So if MoRE's copyright is in full force, then MoRE's permission (which > is already given under the GPL) is all that is needed to distribute > DeCSS, right. Instead, Congress has effectively given this control to > the MPAA, instead of MoRE, and this is a problem. 1201(a)(2) creates a > patent-like monopoly over ideas. This might be OK if it WAS a patent > (which has other tradeoffs), but it isn't. > > Congress has effectively created a new form of IP that is stronger than > a copyright, since it covers ideas, but is easier to get than a patent, > since it doesn't need to be disclosed and is claimed without following > the patent process. I think this exceeds Congressional power and does a > disservice to the progress of computer science. The whole scientific > field of cryptanalysis has been harmed. > Are you intending this as an argument against circumvention device trafficking, or access device trafficking? Your argument seems much more powerful when fighting for the right to create unauthorized players than trying to defeat 1201(a)(2) altogether. Devil's advocate: Child pornographers could similarly claim they're denied copyright rights by child-porn laws. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 13:49:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23898 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:49:08 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23895 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:49:06 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25499 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 10:59:38 -0800 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 10:59:38 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Message-ID: <20000227105937.F23291@duskglow.com> References: <20000227075229.28735.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000227124700.A27825@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000227124700.A27825@thud.reric.net>; from eds@reric.net on Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 12:47:00PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 12:47:00PM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > Are you intending this as an argument against circumvention device > trafficking, or access device trafficking? > > Your argument seems much more powerful when fighting for the right to > create unauthorized players than trying to defeat 1201(a)(2) altogether. > > Devil's advocate: > Child pornographers could similarly claim they're denied copyright rights > by child-porn laws. But that's a "public good" argument. There's no way any judge in his or her right mind would decide child pornography followed the same rules as anything else. He'd be kicked out or impeached so fast it'd make your head spin. --Russell -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 14:43:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00515 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:43:19 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA00470 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:43:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 22338 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Feb 2000 19:44:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000227194405.22337.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:44:05 PST Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:44:05 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Quality King v L'Anza, Exclusive Rights & First Sale To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Judge Kaplan has stated that 'fair use' is not a defense to (a)(2) because access control circumvention is a separate cause of action from the copyright infringement that 17 USC 107 is a defense for. However, the definition of circumvention in (a)(3)(A) requires that access be 'without the authority of the copyright owner'. I have said before that this clause if flawed because the use of the word 'the' assumes both existence and uniqueness of the coyright holder. I believe this clause provides a second means of attack against 1201(a)(2) - In cases where access permission is outside of the exclusive right retained by the copyright holder, the clause cannot be sustained. This has precedent in the 1998 unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Quality King Distributors v. L'Anza Research International. -------------------------- U.S. Supreme Court (1998) No. 96-1470 Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-1470 L'Anza made hair care products and sold them in the US and overseas with copyrighted labels. Their overseas prices were substantially less than US prices. Quality King bought L'Anza products overseas and imported them into the US without L'Anza's permission and sold them at lower prices. L'Anza claimed this violates the 17 USC 602(a) clause: "Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies ... of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. . . ." Quality King claimed that through the doctrine of 'First Sale' embodied in 17 USC 109, specifically 109(a), that the exclusive right to control distribution was given up at the time of sale, and therefore the 'without the authority' clause of 602(a) did not apply. The district court held for the copyright holder, as did the 9th circuit, but the Supreme Court unanimously sided with Quality King. In the _holding_ it wrote "The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution.". This is very significant because 602(a) uses essentially the same language 'without the authority of the owner of copyright' as is used in 1201(a)(3)(A). The point is that the MPAA must show affirmatively that this is a right of copyright that the have retained. The exclusive rights of the copyright holder are limited and enumerated in 106(1-6). No such right to 'determine access control' is listed, but it might be infered from (5) which gives copyright holders control over public display of their work. However, this is distinguished from private display. First sale in 109(c) does pass on a limited public performance right for motion pictures 'to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.' It should easily follow that control over private display is also given up at first sale. The logical conclusion from the above should be that 1201(a)(3)(A) cannot hold in cases where the owner of the DVD access the content therein after first sale. Surely, 'The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control' its private viewing. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 15:05:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05622 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:05:49 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA05618 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:05:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 10380 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Feb 2000 20:06:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000227200634.10379.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:06:34 PST Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:06:34 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Eric Seppanen wrote: > > Congress has effectively created a new form of IP that is stronger > > than a copyright, since it covers ideas, but is easier to get > > than a patent, since it doesn't need to be disclosed and is > > claimed without following the patent process. I think this > > exceeds Congressional power and does a disservice to the progress > > of computer science. The whole scientific field of cryptanalysis > > has been harmed. > > Are you intending this as an argument against circumvention device > trafficking, or access device trafficking? Really both, but DeCSS falls into the latter category, for which the conclusion is less far reaching. > Your argument seems much more powerful when fighting for the right to > create unauthorized players than trying to defeat 1201(a)(2) > altogether. Well, in this case the creation occured extra-territorially so US law doesn't apply to it. Once created, though, the author should be able to distribute it, especially in non-commercial ways. > Devil's advocate: > Child pornographers could similarly claim they're denied copyright > rights by child-porn laws. No one can authorize you to possess child pornography, so this is not a new form of intellectual property. Actually, copyrights do hold on obscene material, by the way. Child porn is banned under wholly separate Constitutional powers than copyright. Here's a quote from the 5th circuit to that effect that should answer your question. MITCHELL BROS. FILM GROUP V. CINEMA ADULT THEATER, 604 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979) "Obscenity law is a concept not adapted for use as a means for ascertaining whether creative works may be copyrighted. Obscenity as a constitutional doctrine has developed as an effort to create a tolerable compromise between First Amendment considerations and police power." "Moreover, there is good reason not to read an implied exception for obscenity into the copyright statutes. The history of content-based restrictions on copyrights, trademarks, and patents suggests that the absence of such limitations in the Copyright Act of 1909 is the result of an intentional policy choice and not simply an omission. " __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 17:21:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05470 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:21:14 -0500 Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05467 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:21:13 -0500 Received: from 216-164-130-212.s593.tnt2.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([216.164.130.212] helo=[216.164.139.6]) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12PC45-0003SH-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:21:26 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38b8f4f4.5840853@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000225171139.3556.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <38b8f4f4.5840853@mail.tiac.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:20:53 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Jeremy Erwin Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >This is something that should be happening at the Library of >Congress. If publishers want to protect anything with encryption, >they should be required to deposit a full unprotected copy at >the LOC, for that day some 90, 120, or indefinite years hence when >the material does enter public domain. A DVD will disintegrate before 90 years. I think CDs have lifespan of 30 years, and I'm sure DVD's are similarly hindered. Apparently the coating on the outside disintegrates, exposing the aluminum, which rapidly oxidizes to a non-reflective material. At some point, the data must be transferred to a new medium, which, of course, requires bypassing the encryption. Jeremy Erwin jerwin@gmu.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 18:08:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15082 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:08:46 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA15079 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:08:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 5525 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Feb 2000 23:09:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20000227230921.5524.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:09:21 PST Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:09:21 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Jury trial To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It appears that the defendants have the right, under the 7th Amendment to a jury trial if they so desire, by analogy with the case below. This might be better than letting Kaplan decide things. Comments? --------------------------- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (1998) FELTNER v. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC. (96-1768) " Accordingly, we must conclude that the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial where the copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages. The right to a jury trial includes the right to have a jury determine the amount of statutory damages, if any, awarded to the copyright owner. [...]" "For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages under §504(c) of the Copyright Act, including the amount itself." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 18:09:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15204 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:09:25 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15201 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:09:24 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA29244 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:10:15 -0600 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:10:15 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Message-ID: <20000227171015.A29156@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000227200634.10379.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000227200634.10379.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 12:06:34PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > > Congress has effectively created a new form of IP that is stronger > > > than a copyright, since it covers ideas, but is easier to get > > > than a patent, since it doesn't need to be disclosed and is > > > claimed without following the patent process. I think this > > > exceeds Congressional power and does a disservice to the progress > > > of computer science. The whole scientific field of cryptanalysis > > > has been harmed. > > > > Devil's advocate: > > Child pornographers could similarly claim they're denied copyright > > rights by child-porn laws. > > Actually, copyrights do hold on > obscene material, by the way. Child porn is banned under wholly > separate Constitutional powers than copyright. Here's a quote from the > 5th circuit to that effect that should answer your question. OK, you got me :) I was trying to imagine something that could a) be called a creative work, b) have evil consequences that justify stifling it, but everything I imagine fails in its analogy because it would need to c) be somehow non-evil when published by another party. So to demonstrate how ridiculous this is, someone should write a CSS encryption program, encrypt an amateur film, burn a dozen DVD-Rs for distribution, and then publicly announce they, as copyright owner, have "authorized" DeCSS as an access device. If you wanted to go way overboard, sue Sony for making an "unauthorized" player. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 18:32:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA19814 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:32:43 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA19811 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:32:42 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA17166 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:33:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38B9B40F.1454CDD2@cdpage.com> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:32:31 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) References: <20000225171139.3556.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <38b8f4f4.5840853@mail.tiac.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jeremy Erwin wrote: > >This is something that should be happening at the Library of > >Congress. If publishers want to protect anything with encryption, > >they should be required to deposit a full unprotected copy at > >the LOC, for that day some 90, 120, or indefinite years hence when > >the material does enter public domain. > > A DVD will disintegrate before 90 years. I think CDs have lifespan of > 30 years, and I'm sure DVD's are similarly hindered. Apparently the > coating on the outside disintegrates, exposing the aluminum, which > rapidly oxidizes to a non-reflective material. At some point, the > data must be transferred to a new medium, which, of course, requires > bypassing the encryption. > > Jeremy Erwin > jerwin@gmu.edu > Where did you get this little nugget of complete misinformation? CDs could easily have a lifespan of over 100 years, and DVDs perhaps just as long (though probably not longer than CDs, since they are two pieces of polycarbonate, bonded, and CDs are one piece) Polycarbonate is what they make morocycle helmets out of. It doesn't "disintegrate". However, you are correct that the contents should be transferred to a new medium long before the expiration of the disc (whenever that is - and no one really knows). That's not because the disc will fail, but because the readers might not be around in another 30 - 50 years. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 18:49:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA22049 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:49:48 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA22046 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:49:47 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.189] (helo=ip189.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12PDSQ-0004Kq-00; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:50:38 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:49:45 GMT Message-ID: <38bbabbb.9321190@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000225171139.3556.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <38b8f4f4.5840853@mail.tiac.net> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id SAA22047 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:20:53 -0500, Jeremy wrote: >A DVD will disintegrate before 90 years. I think CDs have lifespan of >30 years, and I'm sure DVD's are similarly hindered. Apparently the >coating on the outside disintegrates, exposing the aluminum, which >rapidly oxidizes to a non-reflective material. At some point, the >data must be transferred to a new medium, which, of course, requires >bypassing the encryption. CD-R may have a life cycle of 25-30 years, but I've read white papers that claim up to 250 years for stamped CDs. Whatever the practical life span of DVDs, a repository at the LOC would need to be part of an automated near-line storage system that incorporates CD/DVD drives in a RAID-connected jukebox. Writable media might include DLT (cheaper) or MO (for better seek rates.) Actually, because the CSS occurs while making the glass master, a DLT tape copy would probably be a better submission media for movies. The whole point is to have the content submitted without the encryption, hence, no need to bypass anything. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 19:05:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA25171 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:05:51 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA25167 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:05:50 -0500 Received: from [38.32.10.189] (helo=ip189.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12PDhx-0004a9-00; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:06:42 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:05:44 GMT Message-ID: <38bdb9e6.12949386@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000227200634.10379.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> <20000227171015.A29156@thud.reric.net> In-Reply-To: <20000227171015.A29156@thud.reric.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id TAA25169 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:10:15 -0600, Eric wrote: >OK, you got me :) I was trying to imagine something that could >a) be called a creative work, >b) have evil consequences that justify stifling it, > >but everything I imagine fails in its analogy because it would need to > >c) be somehow non-evil when published by another party. The recent hubbub between Amazon.com and the German government surrounding "Mein Kampf" would probably fit best. >So to demonstrate how ridiculous this is, someone should write a CSS >encryption program, encrypt an amateur film, burn a dozen DVD-Rs for >distribution, and then publicly announce they, as copyright owner, have >"authorized" DeCSS as an access device. Would this wind up in a patent dispute? __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 21:40:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA06320 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:40:55 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA06247 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:40:54 -0500 Received: from [38.32.78.68] (helo=ip68.bedford8.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12PG81-0006Fu-00; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:41:46 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jury trial Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:40:49 GMT Message-ID: <38c0dd95.22086052@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000227230921.5524.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000227230921.5524.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id VAA06281 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:09:21 -0800 (PST), Bryan Taylor wrote: >It appears that the defendants have the right, under the 7th Amendment >to a jury trial if they so desire, by analogy with the case below. This >might be better than letting Kaplan decide things. Comments? Wow. Seems like that would certainly be more effective at instructing the public on the issues. The average consumer has no idea that the entertainment industry is about to relegate his/her VCR to a landfill. The jury selection process might also be rather lengthy. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 27 23:49:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09920 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:49:23 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA09917 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:49:22 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA26989 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:50:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:50:14 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) In-Reply-To: <38B9B40F.1454CDD2@cdpage.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Dana Parker wrote: > Jeremy Erwin wrote: > > A DVD will disintegrate before 90 years. I think CDs have lifespan of > > 30 years, and I'm sure DVD's are similarly hindered. Apparently the > > coating on the outside disintegrates, exposing the aluminum, which > > rapidly oxidizes to a non-reflective material. At some point, the > > data must be transferred to a new medium, which, of course, requires > > bypassing the encryption. > > Where did you get this little nugget of complete misinformation? CDs > could easily have a lifespan of over 100 years, and DVDs perhaps just as > long (though probably not longer than CDs, since they are two pieces of > polycarbonate, bonded, and CDs are one piece) Polycarbonate is what they > make morocycle helmets out of. It doesn't "disintegrate". The substrate of a CD is polycarbonate. Digital information is encoded as pits in the polycarbonate. A thin layer of aluminum covers these pits. It is this aluminum which reflects the laser, thus enabling the reading of the dic. The aluminum layer is covered by a layer of lacquer. The stability of this lacquer layer is unknown and there have been incidents of manufacturing errors reducing the lifespan of the disc. Unfortunately, I don't have the references at hand. Various documents available on the net have made the assertion that the CD's lifespan is currently unknown, and possibly short enough to warrent transfer to a different medium. A CD free of manufacturing defectsmay last a few centuries. A CD produced under non-perfect conditions may have a significantly reduced lifespan. see eg. http://www.audio-restoration.com/gilles2.htm http://www.clir.org/cpa/reports/child/sound.html also see a letter by a scientist at the national media libray which indicates that the "best quality" CD-ROM media has a lifespan of between 50 and 100 years. While perhaps impressive, this lifespan unfortunately falls short of copyright term. http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Industry/news/letter-190298.html Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 00:06:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA14011 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:06:36 -0500 Received: from suba01.suba.com (suba01.suba.com [198.87.202.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA14008 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:06:35 -0500 Received: from bugbug (max01-35.suba.com [206.69.121.227]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA08186 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:07:06 -0600 (CST) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Jury trial Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:05:58 -0600 Message-ID: <000001bf81a9$80663020$e37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <38c0dd95.22086052@mail.tiac.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ron Gustavson wrote: > The jury selection process might also be rather lengthy. > > __________no-∞-do__________ > Yeah, watch the MPAA throw out every potential juror who owns a DVD player, owns a VCR player, rents videotapes, listens to mp3s, uses a computer.. :) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 00:10:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA14412 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:10:07 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA14409 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:10:06 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26762 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:20:34 -0800 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:20:34 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jury trial Message-ID: <20000227212033.J23291@duskglow.com> References: <38c0dd95.22086052@mail.tiac.net> <000001bf81a9$80663020$e37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <000001bf81a9$80663020$e37945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain>; from sparky@suba.com on Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 11:05:58PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That'd be a GOOD thing. Cause they wouldn't be jurors who would be biased towards them. "But I LIKE my CDs..." --Russell On Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 11:05:58PM -0600, sparky wrote: > Ron Gustavson wrote: > > > The jury selection process might also be rather lengthy. > > > > __________no-∞-do__________ > > > > Yeah, watch the MPAA throw out every potential juror who owns a DVD player, > owns a VCR player, rents videotapes, listens to mp3s, uses a computer.. > > :) -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 02:42:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA06900 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:42:58 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA06897 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:42:57 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12PKqJ-0004wS-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:43:47 +0100 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:43:47 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Jeremy Erwin wrote: > A DVD will disintegrate before 90 years. I think CDs have lifespan of > 30 years, and I'm sure DVD's are similarly hindered. Apparently the > coating on the outside disintegrates, exposing the aluminum, which > rapidly oxidizes to a non-reflective material. At some point, the > data must be transferred to a new medium, which, of course, requires > bypassing the encryption. Since we have already established that DVD movies are programs, and blank DVDs have for some reason had their key sector pre burned, DeCSS is the only practical way for making a backup of these programs (playback may be limited to the PC platform). Programs can be legaly backed up, and will have to be, as the media they are sold on is set to self destruct ) frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 10:48:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25956 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:48:49 -0500 Received: from web503.mail.yahoo.com (web503.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.70]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA25953 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:48:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 17218 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Feb 2000 15:49:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20000228154933.17217.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web503.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:49:33 PST Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:49:33 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ron Gustavson wrote: > Would this wind up in a patent dispute? At pressent CSS is not patented, to my knowledge. Frank Stevenson might be able to speak to the novelty of the encryption scheme. I vaguely recall that it was just a special case of another well know class of encryption schemes (Linear Feedback Shift Registers ?), which, if true, would probably make it hard to patent. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 11:00:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28438 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:00:43 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA28385 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:00:38 -0500 Received: (qmail 13880 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Feb 2000 16:01:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20000228160122.13879.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:01:22 PST Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:01:22 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > Since we have already established that DVD movies are programs, > and blank DVDs have for some reason had their key sector pre > burned, DeCSS is the only practical way for making a backup of > these programs (playback may be limited to the PC platform). > Programs can be legaly backed up, and will have to be, as the >media they are sold on is set to self destruct ) Interesting point. Regardless of the discussion about lifespan of the DVD media, they are easily scratched, especially if used alot (I've rented DVD's that were scratched). Is there a consumer right to create backups? I would think there should be, but today I think it's based on 'Fair Use'. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 11:04:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29297 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:04:36 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA29294 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:04:34 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12PSfm-000637-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:05:27 +0100 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:05:26 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright In-Reply-To: <20000228154933.17217.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- Ron Gustavson wrote: > > > Would this wind up in a patent dispute? > > At pressent CSS is not patented, to my knowledge. CSS the actual cipher used on DVDs is not patented, but there might be a patent attached to the key management part of the CSS. These patents do not specify which cryptographic ciphers to use, only how to apply them. This brings us to another question, how much of a patent do you have to use, before it is infringement. Say if I patent the algorithm cosisting of steps A,B,C,D,E,F - and someones practices E,F, is that infringement ? The reason I am asking is that the patents in question covers the whole DVD production process with the 'multiplicity' of keys etc. DeCSS only does the decryption part, using one key ( none can be used ). Is this enough to keep it out of hot patent water ? frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 11:16:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA31531 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:16:30 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA31528 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:16:29 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA10844 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:17:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38BA9F4E.22D5F4BE@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:16:14 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > The substrate of a CD is polycarbonate. Digital information is encoded as > pits in the polycarbonate. A thin layer of aluminum covers these pits. It > is this aluminum which reflects the laser, thus enabling the reading of > the dic. The aluminum layer is covered by a layer of lacquer. The > stability of this lacquer layer is unknown and there have been incidents > of manufacturing errors reducing the lifespan of the disc. Unfortunately, > I don't have the references at hand. The lacquer is any one of a number of UV-cured acrylic formulations which have been evolving and improving for the past 40 years - their stability is pretty well known, since they are used in many other applications, from dentistry to wood furniture to windows (see http://www.fusionuv.com/apps/) . In addition, some discs (the ones with most valuable data) can be coated with hard coats to withstand rough handling. Most discs are also coated with labels on top of the lacquer. None of this matters if the discs are retained in archival conditions and not handled, and the number of discs affected by manufacturing errors - out of the billions of discs pressed every year - is very small. None of this applies to DVD, however, which consists of two polycarbonate discs bonded together back to back. There is no lacquer layer, and the data (and reflective layers) are protected by a 0.6mm layer of clear polycarbonate and sandwiched together by a -cured or hot-melt adhesive. Also, while dual-layer discs use aluminum as the bottom, fully reflective layer, the semi-reflective layer is made of gold, silicon, or a silver alloy. > also see a letter by a scientist at the national media libray which > indicates that the "best quality" CD-ROM media has a lifespan of between > 50 and 100 years. While perhaps impressive, this lifespan unfortunately > falls short of copyright term. > > http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Industry/news/letter-190298.html > I saw it when it was first published. What I was wondering is where you found the data to conclude "I think CDs have lifespan of 30 years", when in fact the NML's data shows that they have a lifespan of AT LEAST 50 and more likely 100, years. Furthermore, the letter states: "Judging whether a class of data storage media is suitable for a specific data retention schedule is differerent than assigning a life expectancy value for the same class of products." In other words, the information published by the NML pertaining to CD lifespan relates to the data retention requirements of the NML, NOT to the real-world life-expectancy of the medium. This is another red herring. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 13:20:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA29572 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:20:27 -0500 Received: from smtp11.bellglobal.com (smtp11.bellglobal.com [204.101.251.53]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29569 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:20:21 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca (ppp1928.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.235.8]) by smtp11.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA14979 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:26:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38BABDDA.B5C5AD76@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:26:34 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > This brings us to another question, how much of a patent do you have to > use, before it is infringement. Say if I patent the algorithm cosisting of > steps A,B,C,D,E,F - and someones practices E,F, is that infringement ? A patent is infringed if at least one whole "claim" covers what you are doing. So no, simply doing "steps" E and F within the multi-step description of a claim does not infringe a patent. But a patent typically includes many claims - you must examine each one to see if you fit fully within one of them. So if a patent consists of -claims- A, B, C, D, E and F, and you are doing (fully) E and F, then yes, you are infringing. > The reason I am asking is that the patents in question covers the whole > DVD production process with the 'multiplicity' of keys etc. DeCSS only > does the decryption part, using one key ( none can be used ). Is this > enough to keep it out of hot patent water ? As above, it depends on how the patent is organized, per the 'claims' section. I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 13:27:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA00336 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:27:16 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA00333 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:27:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA09747 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:28:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:28:09 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) In-Reply-To: <38BA9F4E.22D5F4BE@cdpage.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Dana Parker wrote: > Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > > > The substrate of a CD is polycarbonate. Digital information is encoded as > > pits in the polycarbonate. A thin layer of aluminum covers these pits. It > > is this aluminum which reflects the laser, thus enabling the reading of > > the dic. The aluminum layer is covered by a layer of lacquer. The > > stability of this lacquer layer is unknown and there have been incidents > > of manufacturing errors reducing the lifespan of the disc. Unfortunately, > > I don't have the references at hand. Apparently the problem occured at Phillips/Dupont Optical UK Ltd. http://www.soleilmoon.com/catalog/rot.html describes the problem. In this instance, the manufacturer reissued the discs. > > The lacquer is any one of a number of UV-cured acrylic formulations which have > been evolving and improving for the past 40 years - their stability is pretty > well known, since they are used in many other applications, from dentistry to > wood furniture to windows (see http://www.fusionuv.com/apps/) . In addition, > some discs (the ones with most valuable data) can be coated with hard coats to > withstand rough handling. Most discs are also coated with labels on top of the > lacquer. None of this matters if the discs are retained in archival conditions > and not handled, and the number of discs affected by manufacturing errors - > out of the billions of discs pressed every year - is very small. > The fact that manufacturing defects can cause some discs to become unreadable should be of some concern to archivists. Theoretically, Compact discs are invulnerable. But defects in the manufacturing process may cause the invulnerability to be compromised. Suppose a plant uses the wrong formulation in pressing a disc of one particular movie. Unfortunately, this defect occurs in all the pressings. Two years later, the director decides to release a definitive version. Some time after that, the original manufacturing defect is discovered, and the movie studio "recalls" all the defective discs in circulation, and offers to replace them with the "definitive cut" version. What is a depository/archive to do? (If one is studying "the evolution of special effects technology", access to the original 1977 version of "Star Wars" is essential. Of course, only the digitally "enhanced" version is sold today. (and not on dvds,either) ) You mentioned discs with the most valuable data-- Many publishers do not neccesarily believe that media preservation is an important issue. In the case of the movie industry: Why produce a DVD that lasts for 500 years whenn you can produce one that lasts for 35 years at slightly cheaper cost? Book publishers have long used acidic paper/pulp to save money. That is, of course, assuming that DVDs are suceptible to corrosion when produced under improper conditions. A big assumption... > > also see a letter by a scientist at the national media libray which > > indicates that the "best quality" CD-ROM media has a lifespan of between > > 50 and 100 years. While perhaps impressive, this lifespan unfortunately > > falls short of copyright term. > > > > http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Industry/news/letter-190298.html > > > > I saw it when it was first published. What I was wondering is where you found > the data to conclude "I think CDs have lifespan of 30 years", when in fact > the NML's data shows that they have a lifespan of AT LEAST 50 and more likely > 100, years. Unfortunately, I didn't have the articles at hand. I also wonder whether this standard is good enough for preservation of data for 95 years. I believe the gist of the arguement was: If you are interested in preserving data for 50 years, good quality CD-ROMs may be an effective solution. If you are interested in preserving data for between 50 and 100 years, there is a small but finite chance that a CDROM containing your data will not last that long. > Furthermore, the letter states: "Judging whether a class of data storage media > is suitable for a specific data retention schedule is differerent than > assigning a life expectancy value for the same class of products." In other > words, the information published by the NML pertaining to CD lifespan relates > to the data retention requirements of the NML, NOT to the real-world > life-expectancy of the medium. The data retention requirements amount to 95 years (term of copyright). Storing material on CDs for 95 years does not meet this requirement. Storing a backup, and transfer to new medium after 30 or 40 years meets this requirement. There is a chance (perhaps large) that the CD will last for the entire period, yes. But if I was running an archive, it's not a chance I would be willing to take. Do you have any specific data on DVD lifespan? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 13:52:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10196 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:52:15 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA10193 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:52:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 10550 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2000 18:48:41 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2000 18:48:41 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA08852; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:53:05 -0800 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:53:05 -0800 Message-Id: <200002281853.KAA08852@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] civil remedies & prior restraint Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu root wrote: >Will the courts hold that because 2600, et al. have already published, >this is not a case of prior restraint? I sure as hell hope not. Prior restraint means prohibiting the exchange that 2600 are "guilty" of. It would not be a case of prior restraint if there were no prohibition to begin with. I'm assuming you mean prior to actual illegal use of the software. Prior restraint in that sense = (or == in lisp) guilty until proven innocent. ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 14:06:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14080 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:06:00 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14077 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:05:59 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA15572 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:07:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38BAC70B.2AD7E4F0@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:05:47 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > Apparently the problem occured at Phillips/Dupont Optical UK Ltd. > http://www.soleilmoon.com/catalog/rot.html describes the problem. In this > instance, the manufacturer reissued the discs. That happened between 12 and seven years ago. There have been other manufacturing problems in the nearly two decades of CD production - some of them involved the ink used to print labels leaching through to the aluminum, some involved impurities in the polycarbonate, some involved pinholes in the aluminum layer, some delamination. All of these early manufacturing process defects were corrected years ago. The process has long been stable, and keeps improving. > > > The fact that manufacturing defects can cause some discs to become > unreadable should be of some concern to archivists. Theoretically, > Compact discs are invulnerable. But defects in the manufacturing process > may cause the invulnerability to be compromised. Suppose a plant uses the > wrong formulation in pressing a disc of one particular > movie. Unfortunately, this defect occurs in all the pressings. Two years > later, the director decides to release a definitive version. Some time > after that, the original manufacturing defect is discovered, and the movie > studio "recalls" all the defective discs in circulation, and > offers to replace them with the "definitive cut" version. What is a > depository/archive to do? Use the master tape, I imagine. The ones stored in salt mines in the Midwest. Even if a movie came out in CD (as opposed to DVD - meaning in Video CD format), it is not considered an archival form. Mass produced CDs and DVDs are for distribution of entertainment. In the case of archival data, there will always be a backup - whether the CD-R used for input, and MO, or some other medium. > > Unfortunately, I didn't have the articles at hand. It doesn't matter, they're incorrect. But we're not talking about CDs here - you proposed that CDs will last only 30 years, and then from that, concluded that DVD would be equally short-lived. The first premise was false, and the second doesn't follow, since the DVD manufacturing process is quite different from the CD manufacturing process. Sorry, it's still a red herring. Whether the discs last 30 years or 300 has no bearing on this case. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 14:12:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA16811 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:12:46 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA16790 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:12:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 11755 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2000 19:09:07 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2000 19:09:07 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11311; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:13:31 -0800 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:13:31 -0800 Message-Id: <200002281913.LAA11311@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Reading != Transferrence Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jeremy Erwin wrote: >>This is something that should be happening at the Library of >>Congress. If publishers want to protect anything with encryption, >>they should be required to deposit a full unprotected copy at >>the LOC, for that day some 90, 120, or indefinite years hence when >>the material does enter public domain. > >A DVD will disintegrate before 90 years. I think CDs have lifespan of >30 years, and I'm sure DVD's are similarly hindered. Apparently the >coating on the outside disintegrates, exposing the aluminum, which >rapidly oxidizes to a non-reflective material. At some point, the >data must be transferred to a new medium, which, of course, requires >bypassing the encryption. No it doesn't. Bypassing encryption is only required for reading not transferrence. >Jeremy Erwin >jerwin@gmu.edu > > Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 14:18:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18761 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:18:59 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA18758 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:18:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 12140 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2000 19:15:25 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2000 19:15:25 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11901; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:19:49 -0800 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:19:49 -0800 Message-Id: <200002281919.LAA11901@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jury trial Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: >It appears that the defendants have the right, under the 7th Amendment >to a jury trial if they so desire, by analogy with the case below. This >might be better than letting Kaplan decide things. Comments? While Kaplan is no idiot, I vote on a trial. Kaplan needs to be deprogrammed. A trial would extend things long enough for the case to be fully fleshed out. He's already mistaken one clause for another. ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 14:21:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA19843 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:21:50 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA19839 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:21:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 12282 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2000 19:18:17 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2000 19:18:17 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA12223; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:22:41 -0800 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:22:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200002281922.LAA12223@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Can we vote on this or something? Re: [dvd-discuss] Jury trial Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) wrote: >On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:09:21 -0800 (PST), Bryan Taylor wrote: > >>It appears that the defendants have the right, under the 7th Amendment >>to a jury trial if they so desire, by analogy with the case below. This >>might be better than letting Kaplan decide things. Comments? > >Wow. >Seems like that would certainly be more effective at instructing the >public on the issues. The average consumer has no idea that the >entertainment industry is about to relegate his/her VCR to a landfill. > >The jury selection process might also be rather lengthy. Per Sicily :) Let's take this out of the sandbox and into the real world. ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 14:27:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20974 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:27:15 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA20970 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:27:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 12566 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2000 19:23:41 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2000 19:23:41 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA12808; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:28:05 -0800 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:28:05 -0800 Message-Id: <200002281928.LAA12808@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Let's not miss this opportunity Re: RE: [dvd-discuss] Jury trial Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky wrote: >Ron Gustavson wrote: > >> The jury selection process might also be rather lengthy. >> >> __________no-∞-do__________ >> > >Yeah, watch the MPAA throw out every potential juror who owns a DVD player, >owns a VCR player, rents videotapes, listens to mp3s, uses a computer.. > >:) Boy would they look like fools. I really really really think the trial should go on. Besides like I've said before getting these guys off the hook is just the tip of the iceberg. It's time to shut down this law for repairs, like you would any broken nuclear reactor. Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 16:11:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31711 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:11:49 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA31708 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:11:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 32244 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 21:16:47 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:16:47 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAQ Goodness Message-ID: <20000228161647.A23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223005341.P20634@linuxpower.org> <20000223143653.A23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224154609.A23265@linuxpower.org> <20000224180626.N23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000224180626.N23265@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:06:26PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Team - The new cut of the FAQ is online at: http://www.iag.net/~aleris/dvdfaq.txt It contains about 60% new information, a number of legal links, and updates for information sent to me offline by Dana Parker and Benjamin Reeves. Look it over when you get a chance; I think it's really beginning to come together. A few more drafts and I'll be looking to render it into HTML. By the way.. I can already see us reaching a point where the legal end of things and the tech end of things will be both better served by being seperate FAQ's. Especially if we're going to end up dividing this forum into a group of lawyers and a group of techies.. we should probably be thinking about splitting this up. At any rate, look over the FAQ and let me know where I screwed up. :) Thanks, Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 16:32:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA06013 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:32:24 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA06010 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:32:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 32259 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 21:37:34 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:37:34 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000228163734.C23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net>; from Jason M. Felice on Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:42:50PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense > and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, > but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against > circumvention? I've been doing some reading on fair use. To be totally honest, even though fair use isn't a legally defined "right", per se, it might as well be. The courts, over and over again, have used "fair use" as the discriminating factor in cases that had no direct infringement bearings. Perhaps I'm just dim, but I don't see the practical difference between a "right" and a "defense" (i.e., protection from prosecution), and I'm not convinced that the courts do either. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 16:41:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA08653 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:41:27 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA08648 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:41:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 32267 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 21:46:37 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:46:37 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Message-ID: <20000228164637.D23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000225160756.5852.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000225160756.5852.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 08:07:56AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 08:07:56AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > --- Ron Gustavson wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:00:31 -0500, Ian wrote: > > > > >Um, why would this be a problem? The ONLY part of the windows > > > program that is objectionable to the Judge/MPAA is the > > > implementation of the CSS decryption algorithm - coincidentally, > > > that is one of the parts that requires NOTHING windows-specific to > > > > implement. The only thing that needs to be shared between them > > > is the decryption algorithm, and - lo and behold - that's the only > > > thing the MPAA cares about. > > > > I think they probably object more broadly to what they see as the > > function of DeCSS. I don't have any quotes handy, but many times > > have heard film industry reps object not just to the ability to copy > DVDs > > intact, but even to copy high resolution stills, audio, etc. If an > > unencrypted MPEG can be extracted, that is enough. They have > > never accepted Betamax; have tried to interpret that decision as > > "for time shifting only" (as if each viewer should only be allowed to > > possess one VHS cassette); and now have the technical > > and legal tools to erase Betamax. > > >From the accounts I've heard, DeCSS on windows has two buttons: one to > decrypt and one to save the output to disk. (Can anybody post a screen > shot somewhere?). The decrypt button contains the functionality that > may be within scope of 1201(a)(2). > > If for any reason this functionality by itself can get out of the grip > of (a)(2) then the copy to disk part is 'fair use'. It really doesn't > matter if the MPAA didn't accept the decision in Sony, the Supreme > Court has spoken and Congress actually reaffirmed 'fair use' in > 1201(c), although they did make it harder to get into position to take > advantage of it. I don't think that this would fly; I don't think that you can build an argument based on splitting up the screen controls of DeCSS. From the legislative records I've read, the entire purpose of the 17 USC 1201 was to ban "little black boxes", presumably meaning devices that do nothing except break access control. Unless you can show that DeCSS has other practical functions than unscrambling CSS-scrambled DVD video, then trying to claim "fair use" button-by-button just isn't going to work. It's like claiming that owning a fully automatic rifle is legal because you can take it apart and use the barrel as a flower vase. As long as DeCSS has no other practical uses, then it fits the "black box" profile that is mentioned over and over in the legislative record. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 16:58:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14666 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:58:32 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA14663 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:58:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 32318 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 22:03:34 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:03:34 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Message-ID: <20000228170334.E23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000225191811.5222.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000225191811.5222.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 11:18:11AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 11:18:11AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Perhaps Kaplan went too far in his "balancing" theory weighing the > First Amendment vs. Copyright. While it is true that courts have > rejected many First Amendment challenges to federal copyright powers, > the Supreme Court has been careful to note that in doing so, the > deciding criterion was if the speech denied sale-rights and financial > interests verses merely communicating ideas and concepts. They have > always drawn a clear line that "an idea or concept" must be protected. > > DeCSS implements an idea. So does any act of first degree murder. Implementing an idea and communicating an idea are very different things. You're taking this logic jump and either not realizing it yourself or hoping other people don't. What ideas, exactly, does DeCSS communicate? A number of years back, the Canadian government decided to ban the import of the book "American Psycho". Ever read it? You have to be a special kind of mental case to truly enjoy this book - it's pretty much cover to cover graphic serial murder, thinly wrapped in a value-call about the "Me" era of the 1980's. Anyway, Canada decided that it was obscene. Certain powers tried to do the same here, and the attempt was shut down before it even really gathered steam. The reason for this is because people recognized the difference between communicating an idea and implementing one. And now, thanks to the miracle of independent film, we get to watch it on the big screen this summer. Yippee for our side. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 17:06:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA16761 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:06:10 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA16758 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:06:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 32328 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 22:11:19 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:11:19 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000228171119.F23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> <20000226073240.A7279@orange.fenimore.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000226073240.A7279@orange.fenimore.org>; from root on Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 07:32:40AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 07:32:40AM -0700, root wrote: > > (*) Not counting the copy in your head. Which isn't legally a copy. 17 USC 101 defines a copy in terms of being in a fixed form as a material object. It also defines "fixed" as: "A work is ''fixed'' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration." Please, no more of this "copy in your head" business. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 17:10:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA17966 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:10:49 -0500 Received: from smtp13.bellglobal.com (smtp13.bellglobal.com [204.101.251.52]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA17962 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:10:45 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca (ppp327.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.236.135]) by smtp13.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA01749 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:14:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38BAF3E4.DAC89DE4@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:17:08 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> <20000228163734.C23265@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense > > and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, > > but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against > > circumvention? > > I've been doing some reading on fair use. To be totally honest, even though > fair use isn't a legally defined "right", per se, it might as well be. The > courts, over and over again, have used "fair use" as the discriminating factor > in cases that had no direct infringement bearings. Really? If there are cases where 'fair use' was judicially applied where there was no corresponding action for copyright infringment, this would be VERY useful. Do you have any case names? I. -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 17:19:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20873 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:19:35 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA20870 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:19:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 32337 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 22:24:45 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:24:45 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000228172445.G23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000226194326.2019.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000226194326.2019.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:43:26AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:43:26AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Ian Hay wrote: > > > I still think you're right, however, that in the case of (a)(1), > > which prohibits actual circumvention, a defendant (because the > > accessing is being done by -them-) ought to be able to extend the > fair > > use defence to their actions. It's still difficult to apply a fair > > use defence to -our- problem, under (a)(2). See below. > > Fair use is precisely why Congress authorized the Librarian of Congress > to define exceptions to (a)(1). It appears, however that no such > exceptions are built into the law for (a)(2). I think this IS a > potential attacking point against (a)(2). Absolutely. > The 'to promote the public good' interpretation (found throughout > Supreme Court precedent) of the copyright clause must place limits on > Congressional power. I think it is reasonble to call this limitation by > the name 'right of fair use', although another name might be better to > differenitate the statory limitations on exclusive rights given to > copyright holders from the corresponding _Constitutional_ limitations. > > Until the DMCA, Congress never really tried to push the limits of their > authority under the Copyright clause, so Courts have never had to find > this boundary. Courts have clearly recognized that some boundary exists > though. Apparently, legislators are/were claiming that the DMCA wasn't enacted under Copyright authority at all per se, but under the Commerce clause. This lets them wiggle around a lot; rather than 1201 advancing Arts and Sciences, it serves to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations". This is important to know if we're going to mount a counterattack based on the idea that Congress exceeded it's authority given under the Copyright clause. Benjamin Reeve helped get me up to speed here; I've been doing some reading on this. What I've found so far is in the FAQ, 3.17 and 3.18. > > Think of it this way: a store window in a bookstore is an effective > > access-prevention device. We're arguing that because we only intend > > to read the book and make brief 2-sentence quotes out of it - which > is > > protected by fair use - we ought to be able to break into the store > > to enable access for which fair use will be available to us as a > > defence. > > Could you do this if YOU owned the store? What if you owned the book > and the store owner refused to cooperate to give it to you? What if you > could remove the window, take the book, and replace the window without > causing financial loss to the owner? What if you persuaded someone > inside the window to hold the book up to the window so you could read > it? You could probably be nailed for trespassing. The courts would say that rather than taking the law into your own hands, you should have dealt with the owner in civil court. Of course, this is not the case for your last question. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 17:34:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA25142 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:34:11 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA25139 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:34:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 32346 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 22:39:20 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:39:20 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Performance Message-ID: <20000228173920.H23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000226214505.12450.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000226214505.12450.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 01:45:05PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 01:45:05PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Here's an interesting opinion regarding limitations on the exclusive > rights of copyright holders. The crux of this opinion is that the > extent of the 'exclusive rights' to the copyright holder are limited. > Even without citing 'fair use' as an affirmative defense, the copyright > holder has no cause of action unless one of their 'exclusive rights' is > violated. Furthermore, private performance and/or overseas performance > are NOT included in these. Actually, that's precisely what the law says. 17 USC 106 is pretty clear as to what exclusive rights are granted to a copyright owner. It's good though to actually have a citation that backs it up. > Perhaps this would imply the permission required 'with authority of the > copyright holder' required to find circumvention under (a)(2) cannot be > Constitutionally required in cases where it is not the copyright > holder's to give. This is different from 'Fair Use' as a defense. And this is a really good question: which takes precedent, 1201 or 106? 1201(c)(1) states clearly that nothing in 1201 can screw around with any limitations under the Title. 106 wasn't amended to include any provisions about a right to access control; this may in fact be the reason why the MPAA is harping so much on the "copy protection" angle. If Congress had intended for 1201 to be used to control usage (versus reproduction) beyond the usages restricted by 106, they should have amended 106. As it stands, 1201(c)(1) seems to place the entire Section 1201 within the limits defined in 106. Oh, my. A fulcrum, it seems. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 17:39:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA26118 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:39:27 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA26115 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:39:26 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj3.travel-net.com [207.176.160.3]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17693 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:41:02 -0500 Message-ID: <38BAF943.530DEC92@travel-net.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:40:03 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> <20000228163734.C23265@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense > > and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, > > but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against > > circumvention? > > I've been doing some reading on fair use. To be totally honest, even though > fair use isn't a legally defined "right", per se, it might as well be. The > courts, over and over again, have used "fair use" as the discriminating factor > in cases that had no direct infringement bearings. > > Perhaps I'm just dim, but I don't see the practical difference between a > "right" and a "defense" (i.e., protection from prosecution), and I'm not > convinced that the courts do either. Well the distinction would be both procedural and evidentiary. To my mind a 'right' would be absolute and something you would throw in a motion for summary judgement. A defense (or defence up here in Canada) would be something you actually had to go about proving. Am I way off base here? > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J0X 1N0 e-mail:dstein@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 17:41:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA26465 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:41:07 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA26450 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:41:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 32354 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 22:46:17 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:46:17 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Programs sharing information Message-ID: <20000228174617.I23265@linuxpower.org> References: <899le1$t0k$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Jeremy A Erwin on Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 07:57:47PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 07:57:47PM -0500, Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > On 26 Feb 2000, David A. Wagner wrote: > > > Here's a test: When you mount the DVD disc (after all, it's just a > > filesystem -- sometimes an encrypted filesystem, but a filesystem > > nonetheless), take a look at the resulting files (vob's?). Do they > > have the executable bit set? If you try to run them (try Windows > > 'Run as' or just executing them from the command line), does it work? > > > I have a java application to access CVS. Most people would regard > it as being a program. However, I cannot simply run it; instead, the > program is run through a java runtime environment. I do have an shortcut > that automatically loads the resulting program. Simililarly, I can > configure my computer to load the "Matrix" program using the ATI DVD > "runtime environment". > > On the Macintosh, at least for a while, Desk Accessories and Applications > had different Creator/Type bits. Desk Accessories (clocks, calculators, > adress books, etc) couldn't be run directly-- They had to be stashed in > the system file, and were acessed through an "apple menu" that was > prepended to every applications menubar. No executable bit-- but quite > possibly a program. > > Are interpreted basic sources "programs"? > What about pcode (Pascal)? This is the reason why we argued for nearly a week about Turing Completeness. We were trying to establish an engineering definition for "program" that eliminated the myth that there's no difference between structured data and a computer program. TC was a means to getting to that definition. Fortunately or unfortunately, this entire question is moot legally, because the legal definition as defined in 17 USC 101 is so vague and general that you could claim that JPEG is a program. See the still-in-development FAQ, 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4: http://www.iag.net/~aleris/dvdfaq.txt Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 17:45:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27715 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:45:53 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA27711 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:45:52 -0500 Received: (qmail 32362 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 22:51:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:51:03 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Message-ID: <20000228175103.J23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000227075229.28735.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <20000227093016.A10235@orange.fenimore.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000227093016.A10235@orange.fenimore.org>; from root on Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 09:30:16AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 09:30:16AM -0700, root wrote: > > Can I rephrase your point (partly) as a question? "Where does 1201(a)(2) > derive its constitutional basis?" It certainly doesn't look like > the copyright clause because decryptors have legitimate uses > that Congress is _forbidden_ from regulating (public domain for one), > if the claim is Congress' patent power, then that will fail in court, > if necessary and proper, then they can't control source code. I've been made aware lately that 1201 was enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause rather than the Copyright Clause, according to the legislators who contributed to the bill (including Rep. Tom Bliley, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce). This is sort of important, because Commerce lets the government have lots of room to move that they don't have under Copyright. See development FAQ, 3.16 and 3.17. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 18:00:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA30857 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:00:33 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA30840 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:00:31 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA10724 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:01:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38BAFDFE.120DF0FE@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:00:14 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. References: <20000226194326.2019.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> <20000228172445.G23265@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Could you do this if YOU owned the store? What if you owned the book > > and the store owner refused to cooperate to give it to you? What if you > > could remove the window, take the book, and replace the window without > > causing financial loss to the owner? What if you persuaded someone > > inside the window to hold the book up to the window so you could read > > it? > > You could probably be nailed for trespassing. The courts would say that > rather than taking the law into your own hands, you should have dealt > with the owner in civil court. > > Of course, this is not the case for your last question. :) > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris Any body see the article in ZDNet this am? They use the analogy of fencing in a public sidewalk. See http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2449300,00.html?chkpt=zdnn022800 -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 18:06:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00859 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:06:36 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00781 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:06:35 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA11115 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:07:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38BAFF6E.EE46B144@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:06:22 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) References: <38BAC70B.2AD7E4F0@cdpage.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: > > Sorry, it's still a red herring. Whether the discs last 30 years or 300 has no > bearing on this case. Oh and BTW, sorry for seeming to jump down your throat on this. Your subsequent posts make it obvious that you didn't know this is a Religious Issue in the platterhead community (kind of like a non-Linux initiated person insisting that it's Lie-nux, only worse). Ever since that idiotic story in USNEWs came out, and even before, the issue of media longevity of discs has been a touchy subject. Another Religious Issue for platterheads: what color of CD-R media is "best"? (Answer: color has nothing to do with quality) -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 18:06:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00920 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:06:51 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA00917 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:06:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 4185 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Feb 2000 23:07:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000228230740.4184.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:07:40 PST Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:07:40 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Perhaps I'm just dim, but I don't see the practical difference > between a "right" and a "defense" (i.e., protection from prosecution), > and I'm not convinced that the courts do either. There is, however, a difference between a statutory right and a constitutional right. The former is granted by Congress, the former is granted by natural law, and the power to infringe these in not included among the limited, enumerated powers given to Congress. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the exclusive rights held by the copyright holder are statutory in nature. For example, this was repeated in the Sony case. Thus copyright holders must base their claims in the actual law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court (or any other court, to my knowledge) has never, to my knowledge, made a declaration that the public's rights to use copyrighted material after 'first sale' derive from a purely statutory origin. They have defined the 'public good' interpretation of the copyright power and several times said explicitly that the purposes of the copyright/patent clause are both a power and a limitation. It seems a reasonable conclusion that there are limitations that are constitutional within the copyright power. The hard part is defining them, since there is very little precedent to go on. You have to rely on constitutional textual arguements, original intent, colonial commonlaw, and the dicta of subsequent Supreme Court decisions in such cases. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 18:16:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA02876 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:16:58 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA02873 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:16:56 -0500 Received: (qmail 32428 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 23:22:07 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:22:07 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000228182207.M23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> <20000228163734.C23265@linuxpower.org> <38BAF3E4.DAC89DE4@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38BAF3E4.DAC89DE4@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 05:17:08PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 05:17:08PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > > I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense > > > and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, > > > but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against > > > circumvention? > > > > I've been doing some reading on fair use. To be totally honest, even though > > fair use isn't a legally defined "right", per se, it might as well be. The > > courts, over and over again, have used "fair use" as the discriminating factor > > in cases that had no direct infringement bearings. > > Really? If there are cases where 'fair use' was judicially applied > where there was no corresponding action for copyright infringment, this > would be VERY useful. Do you have any case names? Give me a bit; I don't have them offhand. Lemme see what I can dig up. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 18:19:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA03239 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:19:09 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA03236 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:19:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 32434 invoked by uid 502); 28 Feb 2000 23:24:19 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:24:19 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000228182419.N23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> <20000228163734.C23265@linuxpower.org> <38BAF943.530DEC92@travel-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38BAF943.530DEC92@travel-net.com>; from Dan Steinberg on Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 05:40:03PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 05:40:03PM -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > > I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense > > > and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, > > > but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against > > > circumvention? > > > > I've been doing some reading on fair use. To be totally honest, even though > > fair use isn't a legally defined "right", per se, it might as well be. The > > courts, over and over again, have used "fair use" as the discriminating factor > > in cases that had no direct infringement bearings. > > > > Perhaps I'm just dim, but I don't see the practical difference between a > > "right" and a "defense" (i.e., protection from prosecution), and I'm not > > convinced that the courts do either. > > Well the distinction would be both procedural and evidentiary. To my > mind a 'right' would be absolute and something you would throw in a > motion for summary judgement. A defense (or defence up here in Canada) > would be something you actually had to go about proving. Am I way off > base here? I suspect you're probably not. I'd be curious if there's actually anything in the federal rules of procedure that makes this distinction. I'll rummage around and see what I can find. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 18:22:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA03876 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:22:48 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03873 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:22:47 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 456DD76EA; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:24:08 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:18:13 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000225160756.5852.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> <20000228164637.D23265@linuxpower.org> In-Reply-To: <20000228164637.D23265@linuxpower.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022817240800.22734@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 08:07:56AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > I don't think that this would fly; I don't think that you can build an > argument based on splitting up the screen controls of DeCSS. From the > legislative records I've read, the entire purpose of the 17 USC 1201 was > to ban "little black boxes", presumably meaning devices that do nothing > except break access control. Unless you can show that DeCSS has other > practical functions than unscrambling CSS-scrambled DVD video, then > trying to claim "fair use" button-by-button just isn't going to work. > It's like claiming that owning a fully automatic rifle is legal because > you can take it apart and use the barrel as a flower vase. I agree with you partly. The two function argument is extremely weak. It might slip through the "primary fuction" language of 1201, but I doubt it. However, fair use (or the constitutional arguments behind it) can possibly be applied anyway. Your analogy with a gun is sort of good for this. I might not have the right to own a run based on the fact that it can be a vase, but I am guaranteed certain rights to gun ownership by the second ammentment. > As long as DeCSS has no other practical uses, then it fits the "black > box" profile that is mentioned over and over in the legislative record. Right. We just have to make it so that "black boxes" cannot be banned by such an indescriminant law. -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Consider well the proportions of things. It is better to be a young June-bug than an old bird of paradise. -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar" From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 19:41:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA18116 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:41:16 -0500 Received: from web503.mail.yahoo.com (web503.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.70]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA18094 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:41:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 16840 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 00:42:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229004205.16839.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web503.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:42:05 PST Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:42:05 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > DeCSS implements an idea. > > So does any act of first degree murder. And as such, murder does not constitute a breach of _copyright_ laws. See the discussion regarding obscenity in the other thread. > What ideas, exactly, does DeCSS communicate? DeCSS the executable, communicates an interface to the user, accepts input from the user, and then helps the users read the selected .vob file format. > > A number of years back, the Canadian government decided to ban the > import of the book "American Psycho". Ever read it? You have to be a > special kind of mental case to truly enjoy this book - it's pretty > much cover to cover graphic serial murder, thinly wrapped in a > value-call about the "Me" era of the 1980's. It happens to be one of my wife's favorite books. My wife is a highly educated lawyer, not a 'mental case', and the daughter of an english professor. I've read parts of it, but found it's message too liberal for my taste. Anyway, many respectable people did like it. > Anyway, Canada decided that it was obscene. Certain powers tried to > do the same here, and the attempt was shut down before it even really > gathered steam. The reason for this is because people recognized the > difference between communicating an idea and implementing one. The first step to burning people is burning books. Boo-hiss for Canada. > And now, thanks to the miracle of independent film, we get to watch > it on the big screen this summer. Yippee for our side. If you don't like the book, don't go to the movie. BTW, are you sure that it is an independent movie? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 19:43:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA18558 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:43:42 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA18544 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:43:41 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29197 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:54:01 -0800 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:54:00 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Message-ID: <20000228165400.Q23291@duskglow.com> References: <20000229004205.16839.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000229004205.16839.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 04:42:05PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Although I'm not sure I disagree (or agree) with the original poster, "religious" disagreements like this aren't going to help our cause any. To quote the American President, paraphrased: "Listen, a lot of rights are being trampled on here. Let's keep our eye on the ball." --Russell On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 04:42:05PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > DeCSS implements an idea. > > > > So does any act of first degree murder. > And as such, murder does not constitute a breach of _copyright_ laws. > See the discussion regarding obscenity in the other thread. > > > What ideas, exactly, does DeCSS communicate? > DeCSS the executable, communicates an interface to the user, accepts > input from the user, and then helps the users read the selected .vob > file format. > > > > A number of years back, the Canadian government decided to ban the > > import of the book "American Psycho". Ever read it? You have to be > a > > special kind of mental case to truly enjoy this book - it's pretty > > much cover to cover graphic serial murder, thinly wrapped in a > > value-call about the "Me" era of the 1980's. > > It happens to be one of my wife's favorite books. My wife is a highly > educated lawyer, not a 'mental case', and the daughter of an english > professor. I've read parts of it, but found it's message too liberal > for my taste. Anyway, many respectable people did like it. > > > Anyway, Canada decided that it was obscene. Certain powers tried to > > do the same here, and the attempt was shut down before it even really > > gathered steam. The reason for this is because people recognized the > > difference between communicating an idea and implementing one. > > The first step to burning people is burning books. Boo-hiss for Canada. > > > And now, thanks to the miracle of independent film, we get to watch > > it on the big screen this summer. Yippee for our side. > > If you don't like the book, don't go to the movie. BTW, are you sure > that it is an independent movie? > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 20:03:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA26014 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:03:02 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA26011 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:03:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 22310 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 01:03:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229010347.22309.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:03:47 PST Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:03:47 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ian Hay wrote: > Really? If there are cases where 'fair use' was judicially applied > where there was no corresponding action for copyright infringment, > this would be VERY useful. Do you have any case names? See my post on the Quality King v. L'Anza case (using the new search engine on the list archives), or look it up from the cite below. In this case, the cause of action was importing non-copied original 'works' (hair care products with copyrighted instruction labels). The opinion interpreted the exclusive rights given up after 'first sale'. U.S. Supreme Court (1998) No. 96-1470 Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-1470 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 20:31:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02516 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:31:00 -0500 Received: from suba01.suba.com (suba01.suba.com [198.87.202.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02513 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:30:59 -0500 Received: from bugbug (max01-32.suba.com [206.69.121.224]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA28824 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:31:51 -0600 (CST) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:30:51 -0600 Message-ID: <000701bf8254$9d0557a0$e07945ce@bugbug.WinNATDomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <20000228160122.13879.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > > Since we have already established that DVD movies are programs, > > and blank DVDs have for some reason had their key sector pre > > burned, DeCSS is the only practical way for making a backup of > > these programs [snip] > > Interesting point. Regardless of the discussion about lifespan of the > DVD media, they are easily scratched, especially if used alot (I've > rented DVD's that were scratched). Is there a consumer right to create > backups? I would think there should be, but today I think it's based on > 'Fair Use'. This is a late reply to this post, but copies such as the one you are talking about are as much a "consumer right" as it is possible to get, pretty much because of "fair use" I think (that is, in case I'm being vague, there IS a consumer right to copy both software and copyrighted works for archival purposes). Furthermore, this right is not affected by the perishability of your media. Media can always be lost. (apology in advance for veering this thread off-topic) I'm sorry if I've missed any posts which bring this "right" (or, legal balance within the copyright law, historically supported through rulings by federal judges) into question, the existence of which seem to be implied by your question (other than that first one by Ian Hay - there has been a lot to read). A comment (http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/162.pdf) addressing very powerfully the infringements of fair use by the anti-access law is up at the comment site; this one is the joint effort of five library associations. This document makes it clear that the only reason libraries can exist is through the "first sale doctrine" which is fair use of course (p6 - the doc quotes 17 USC 109). I suppose you might argue that this doesn't work against 1201, as it made an exception for libraries and not for consumers; however, this doctrine has never been interpreted as applying only to libraries, but to everyone. As the comment says: "Fair use has evolved as the centerpiece of a series of carefully considered, sensitive balances between the exclusive rights given by copyright law to creators of potential works and the ability of the public to make non-infringing use of copyrighted material without the prior approval of the copyright owner." (p7 passim) The statement about "without the prior approval" is I think very significant. IANALibrarian, but I would think these people know whereof they speak, and they speak as if fair use DOES NOT REQUIRE the "authority" of the copyright holder. This would place the language of 1201 DIRECTLY in conflict with the long history of fair use, which has been decided by federal judges. The comment points out that technological measures, as 1201 vaguely defines them, essentially usurps this entire history of careful, deliberate decision and places all power into the hands of the content providers. It really does undermine fair use. Anyway, maybe something could be made of this? I know where I'd go with it (IANALawyer, so ): the "with authority" clause does not apply to fair use, as fair use defines non-authorized but also non-infringing uses [backup]; 2) these uses include copying for archival purposes and viewing/replaying in any format the legitimate owner of the media sees fit [backup - it is the latter which is most significant for the defense I think, although I believe it is implied by the former]; 3) it is the intention of 1201 that 1201 is not to infringe against the existing state of fair use [backup]; 4) ergo, the MPAA cannot apply 1201 to persons who legitimately obtained a DVD. Who I think include the persons responsible for DeCSS. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 20:58:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA10851 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:58:36 -0500 Received: from mx01.gis.net (scribe.gis.net [208.218.130.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA10848 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:58:35 -0500 From: breeve@ibm.net Received: from left (ppp49-119.gis.net [216.41.49.119]) by mx01.gis.net (8.8.8/8.8.8+pyrd) with SMTP id UAA10854 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:59:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000228205923.00854aa0@pop6.ibm.net> X-Sender: breeve@pop6.ibm.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:59:23 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. In-Reply-To: <20000229010347.22309.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id UAA10849 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Uhh. Hay is right here. Probably ought to have something pretty stout before trying to prove him wrong.... Held in Quality King: The first sale doctrine endorsed in §109(a) is applicable to imported copies. Pp. 3-18. The case started as an action for infringement..... >--- Ian Hay wrote: > >> Really? If there are cases where 'fair use' was judicially applied >> where there was no corresponding action for copyright infringment, >> this would be VERY useful. Do you have any case names? > >See my post on the Quality King v. L'Anza case (using the new search >engine on the list archives), or look it up from the cite below. In >this case, the cause of action was importing non-copied original >'works' (hair care products with copyrighted instruction labels). The >opinion interpreted the exclusive rights given up after 'first sale'. > >U.S. Supreme Court (1998) >No. 96-1470 >Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc. >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-1470 Benjamin Reeve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 20:58:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA10985 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:58:58 -0500 Received: from web505.mail.yahoo.com (web505.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA10881 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:58:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 10986 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 01:59:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229015939.10985.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web505.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:59:39 PST Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:59:39 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Apparently, legislators are/were claiming that the DMCA wasn't > enacted under Copyright authority at all per se, but under the > Commerce clause. This lets them wiggle around a lot; rather than 1201 > advancing Arts and Sciences, it serves to "regulate Commerce with > foreign nations". This is correct and explains why the _Commerce_ Committee was the one who produced the law. They refered to it as a 'paracopyright' power. > This is important to know if we're going to mount a counterattack > based on the idea that Congress exceeded it's authority given under > the Copyright clause. Benjamin Reeve helped get me up to speed here; > I've been doing some reading on this. What I've found so far is in > the FAQ, 3.17 and 3.18. There are several ways to argue that this doesn't grant any additional scope to Congressional power to ban DeCSS. 1) Fortunately, the Supreme Court has finally in the recent Lopez decision started to insist that there actually be some commerce involved when the commerce power is used. Distributing non-commercial GPL access control tools could arguably be outside of this range, especially if you read Thomas's concurrance in Lopez. 2) The extent to which access control involves commerce is exactly the extent to which it can lead to sale-depriving activity already covered under copyright law. In other words, the commerce power overlaps the copyright law fully in this area. A broad commerce power is already inherent in the copyright power and referencing the commerce clause doesn't expand the scope of it any. 3) The copyright/patent clause contains limitations on Congressional power. These limitations cannot be circumvented by referenceing other powers, for then they are not limitations at all. General powers cannot override specific limitations on power. There was a good post about this on the Eldred v Reno openlaw discussion in a post by user 'ghomer' who wrote: > But cf. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. v. Gibbons,455 > U.S. 457 (1982): Court struck down non-uniform bankruptcy law as > violating internal uniformity limitation of bankruptcy > power. Court concluded that internal limitation applied even if > law passed under commerce power: > > "Unlike the Commerce Clause, the Bankruptcy Clause itself contains > an affirmative limitation or restriction upon Congress' power: > bankruptcy laws must be uniform throughout the > United States. Such uniformity in the applicability of legislation > is not required by the Commerce Clause. Thus, if we were to hold > that Congress had the power to enact nonuniform > bankruptcy laws pursuant to the Commerce Clause, we would > eradicate from the Constitution a limitation on the power of > Congress to enact bankruptcy laws." Links to US Supreme Court Cases: UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ (1995) No. 93-1260 Opinion: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html Thomas Concur: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSN. v. GIBBONS, 455 U.S. 457 (1982) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=455&page=457 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 21:05:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA12728 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:05:32 -0500 Received: from eon.law.harvard.edu ([202.39.71.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA12704; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:05:30 -0500 Message-Id: <200002290205.VAA12704@eon.law.harvard.edu> From: your@friend Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:14:53 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01BF7EB0.0371D980"; type="multipart/alternative" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Unsent: 1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BF7EB0.0371D980 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000A_01BF7EB0.0371D980" ------=_NextPart_001_000A_01BF7EB0.0371D980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =B3=BD=BBP=BA=B5=B4x=A4=A3=A5i=AD=DD=B1o ? =B1=FD=B4M=A8D=B0=AA=C1~=AD=DD=C2=BE=A4u=A7@ , =ABo=A4=A3=B7Q=C3=E3=ABo=A5=BF=C2=BE ? = =A7=DA=AD=CC=AB=E6=BCx=A6U=A6a=BA=EB=AD^=BB=B4=C3P=AD=DD=C2=BE ! =BD=D0=AB=F6=B3o=B8=CC=B7|=A6=B3=BA=EB=AA=F6=B5o=B2{ ! ------=_NextPart_001_000A_01BF7EB0.0371D980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
3D""=20
 
=B3=BD=BBP=BA=B5=B4x=A4=A3=A5i= =AD=DD=B1o=20 ?
 
=B1=FD=B4M=A8D=B0=AA=C1~=AD=DD=C2=BE=A4= u=A7@ ,
=ABo=A4=A3=B7Q=C3=E3=ABo=A5=BF=C2=BE=20 ?
           &n= bsp;=20 =A7=DA=AD=CC=AB=E6=BCx=A6U=A6a=BA=EB=AD^=BB=B4=C3P=AD=DD=C2=BE = !
 
=BD=D0=AB=F6=B3o=B8=CC= =B7|=A6=B3=BA=EB=AA=F6=B5o=B2{ !
 
 
------=_NextPart_001_000A_01BF7EB0.0371D980-- ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BF7EB0.0371D980 Content-Type: image/gif; name="go_metro.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <000401bf7e6c$eff76980$9c0010ac@LocalHost> R0lGODlhjgBtAPcAAAAAAIAAAACAAICAAAAAgIAAgACAgMDAwMDcwKbK8ACB/8HB/0CAgID/APDI pP+AAKSgoIAA/4AAQABAgPD7/wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEBAAAAAAIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAP/78KCgpICAgP8AAAD/AP//AAAA//8A/wD//////ywAAAAAjgBtAAAI/wD/CRxI sKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSpxIsWJFABgzWtzIsaNHhhlDivxIsqTJhyMLhjzJsmVJjCgBuJxJ06HM fzAh5qzJs+fAlRJ3+hzaEqZGnTeJKtUpUKTTjkmXSlXptGpUqFOzNk151OVVrT2BKv0KlmbXpWTL sjwrla3ak2nRxn0Lde5Yu3QnugWLN2/fn38RXg0MknBWjUITJo4odPHFvApzOla5sbHhyJAjW12c dK/mzpODXp56c+Tmqkipfgzt9yDhpz5lgs4cEzbBzbFxlh6NliTr1Yh30zY4WHZwoIl/17XN++5t o7dx/hTcfOFu5sOJP+eqWzb16oq7o/+Wnp2ydOPTS5+n6vmxeOzlp3tsT/G6Vfnxyc83aX+8/vjJ kUUfeMShh1tT+XWH31b/Refgagwep5xf6p13H4LePYjVexcSGJaG7u2nG4ddechTVB6aOKKFFzY4 XEocTdiQZKcJlyBidc1nXI0M5reSiUBuxaOLmWGUD4ogImgeYBvWaJSKXgFwJGjHsbgdiykK2SGU RaEGZJZawibjYUehJ159zYmJXJJFIumik2qiydWPnSWo3YqViVVYQf7sZNmYFOJpEY14TeYYfRTt o+g+RPJHpV1izamZdf4Bt+g+XGKW54NxTainR4oCcGmmmpbq2lcVFjjVqKPmRuKCqhb/KCCpD12K aast8cPmnV7O2mtbooYaLKa0ujbjZ6oeiNaiGOFa045upfpcg4cCChezwxKr1lyGWcsStqM6yY+u WgFarETM2mprs9iC11ehaZ11bkTq1msvseTqBSuI8sY7GF//3BuqwNrqhSJb8KKkFsHZ1uttj5OC dKWxZTHMMG/K1fkZjLsSxa7DDasLgD86cjxjgKqR9rG9IYfbZWp3MpkVwTRjSnKUv5lc3Ko13/tp l//KbNnEHrPaM7EA5GtWmJUejOHDHa17NNSDUrqxkMsOPLXH7RVKNFHpLhqwz/NSXC2k25WNkLBh s6x2zIJpGavcZUGbUahjWa033b09/61SwUOhvefXkP38bMR78124qFSjqZinqDZeE7auUndyeC9W WhTipsJNYbOI6vi4TZ3TFSzj0EU5+rFLvo0msdrOGxrkT6a8OOyprzV7iq5T6ufpseOMeYx128gu 6o2WPHyeN/ctEKNj320yXJ0qbzhwTpEdUj75NP8PP3DumHZI4FcfI8KhRwR+mCBny/2UIuVz6fvy txu+k8vF68/+/oybZ/2KOlK4jATAfRypgPSb3/sUyD0GFiSBi+Kenux2v05VcEYBXOCtMiJATEHQ gBrMYAMjGEIQjlCECCwh/DYjLAk2633ckpIKQ/guFLZQgvOTIQlPaMIU8vCDPWSg/P9ON0McojBY ErROEHcIwEIxUYFSGpgMhwXEKhbRh1gc1RWFGEHWIHGLeFOiDUkYRSJ2cIljTCMa10g/M55xiQQ8 oxe/+MMSQgqMoTKiCLn4xD6qEYZQrJ+oEkhHBEppdlasYz6S9w9/JDKFZdyjH9mIRzhO0ZCKHGIe pyQrGWbSgdx6JBfpyMc/VlKCgjSgDpllxyIiTSSTTKSgCNKnRxJxlZI05SdjaccpsvKNnvzlGUXJ y0U2CnylvGQpianLLAqTinr05LCU2cxSohFiz0nmBz0JQGZScpdp5ObAtonKTYLzmwDcF06cOchD jjOE3ownDct5K0KOsZ0nlOc5sdmAFGdu0n3wPKVAz1lOJOISjQf0JzovBasXnvKgA1WoFSMZRDdO s5VTqmYxm8ieCnr0oyANqUhHWhySmvSkKE3paZTGkHEpzaUv9d9AYEoQms7UpTXF6U1lKhCb9lSn P+Xp94Tq06EK1U5ITapSl8rUpjr1qVCNqlSnStWqWpUhAQEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BF7EB0.0371D980-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 21:26:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA28053 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:26:10 -0500 Received: from smtp11.bellglobal.com (smtp11.bellglobal.com [204.101.251.53]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28049 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:26:09 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca (ppp19533.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.225.205]) by smtp11.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA02358 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:32:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38BB2FCA.1B566AE9@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:32:42 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. References: <20000229010347.22309.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Ian Hay wrote: > > > Really? If there are cases where 'fair use' was judicially applied > > where there was no corresponding action for copyright infringment, > > this would be VERY useful. Do you have any case names? > > See my post on the Quality King v. L'Anza case (using the new search > engine on the list archives), or look it up from the cite below. In > this case, the cause of action was importing non-copied original > 'works' (hair care products with copyrighted instruction labels). The > opinion interpreted the exclusive rights given up after 'first sale'. This is an interesting case, but I ought to point out that the -very first line- excludes it from the class of cases I was looking for. Please note in my post above the words "where there was no corresponding action for copyright infringment", and the first line of the case below the headnote, "Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Act), 17 U.S.C. § 106(3), gives the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to distribute copies of a copyrighted work." This is an action for copyright infringment. Also, the very brief discussion of fair use was nowhere close to determinative in this case. You are mistaking "first sale" with "fair use". I. > U.S. Supreme Court (1998) > No. 96-1470 > Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc. > http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-1470 -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 21:55:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09233 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:55:58 -0500 Received: from mx02.gis.net (mail2.gis.net [208.218.130.7]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA09230 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:55:57 -0500 From: breeve@ibm.net Received: from left (ppp49-119.gis.net [216.41.49.119]) by mx02.gis.net (8.8.8/8.8.8+pyrd) with SMTP id VAA09847 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:56:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000228215524.00854100@pop6.ibm.net> X-Sender: breeve@pop6.ibm.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:55:24 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. In-Reply-To: <20000229015939.10985.qmail@web505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 05:59 PM 2/28/00 -0800, you wrote: >--- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> Apparently, legislators are/were claiming that the DMCA wasn't >> enacted under Copyright authority at all per se, but under the >> Commerce clause. This lets them wiggle around a lot; rather than >1201 >> advancing Arts and Sciences, it serves to "regulate Commerce with >> foreign nations". > >This is correct and explains why the _Commerce_ Committee was the one >who produced the law. They refered to it as a 'paracopyright' power. --- Well, Commerce Committee might have held hearings and reported the bill out in any event. That has to do with the way the legislative body organizes itself and its work. It is certainly true that quite a bit of the legislative record makes reference to the commerce clause as authority for enactment of DMCA... "paracopyright" I think we all agree is a kind of mysterious new word. > >> I've been doing some reading on this. What I've found so far is in >> the FAQ, 3.17 and 3.18. > >There are several ways to argue that this doesn't grant any additional >scope to Congressional power to ban DeCSS. --- Separate that out.... a) any additional scope. It certainly provides additional scope to possible legislative enactments. b) power to ban deCSS .. that is the issue here. The argument, exactly, will have to be that the DMCA does not, and could not, and would be unconsitutional if it did, and is unconstitutional if that is the only way to read it... "ban" deCSS. (And any time now would be a good time to construct the argument...) > >1) Fortunately, the Supreme Court has finally in the recent Lopez >decision started to insist that there actually be some commerce >involved when the commerce power is used. --- Yes. That is, basically, what Lopez stands for. Commerce clause has been a very wide door through which a lot of fat ladies have strolled. Lopez measures the width a little. Distributing non-commercial >GPL access control tools could arguably be outside of this range, >especially if you read Thomas's concurrance in Lopez. --- Well..... it would be tough to say that circumvention / non issues are not sufficiently connected to commerce. The prohibition may be ultra vires in any case, but the argument that there is not a sufficient nexus is going to be a little tough... > >2) The extent to which access control involves commerce is exactly the >extent to which it can lead to sale-depriving activity already covered >under copyright law. --- Probably not. Indeed we probably don't even want to argue this equality. Nor would I be sure that "sale-depriving" will turn out to be a helpful concept in this context. In other words, the commerce power overlaps the >copyright law fully in this area. A broad commerce power is already >inherent in the copyright power and referencing the commerce clause >doesn't expand the scope of it any. --- Clearly the two powers do not "overlap" in a literal sense. Nonetheless, there is the germ of an interesting argument here, perhaps put as the notion that Congress cannot enact as regulation of commerce that which it is not empowered to enact as a grant of right. There will be some case law to support such a proposition, and some case law that is a little wobbly on the issue. > >3) The copyright/patent clause contains limitations on Congressional >power. These limitations cannot be circumvented by referenceing other >powers, for then they are not limitations at all. --- Again, you are on to something very crucial, but the use of the word "circumvented" is a conclusion, (yes, just as it is in the DMCA and in its application to deCSS). Arguably, other powers can be used "in conjunction" with the copyright power. So, what is the difference between "circumvention" and "conjunction"? Ah, that is why we have lawsuits...... General powers cannot >override specific limitations on power. ---- Absolutely correct general principle. Can it be applied here so as to stick? There was a good post about >this on the Eldred v Reno openlaw discussion in a post by user 'ghomer' >who wrote: > >> But cf. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. v. Gibbons,455 >> U.S. 457 (1982): Court struck down non-uniform bankruptcy law as >> violating internal uniformity limitation of bankruptcy >> power. Court concluded that internal limitation applied even if >> law passed under commerce power: >> >> "Unlike the Commerce Clause, the Bankruptcy Clause itself contains >> an affirmative limitation or restriction upon Congress' power: >> bankruptcy laws must be uniform throughout the >> United States. Such uniformity in the applicability of legislation >> is not required by the Commerce Clause. Thus, if we were to hold >> that Congress had the power to enact nonuniform >> bankruptcy laws pursuant to the Commerce Clause, we would >> eradicate from the Constitution a limitation on the power of >> Congress to enact bankruptcy laws." > >Links to US Supreme Court Cases: > >UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ (1995) >No. 93-1260 >Opinion: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html >Thomas Concur: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html > >RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSN. v. GIBBONS, 455 U.S. 457 (1982) >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=455&p age=457 > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com > > Benjamin Reeve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 22:06:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA10673 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:06:44 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA10670 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:06:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 32749 invoked by uid 502); 29 Feb 2000 03:11:46 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:11:46 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Message-ID: <20000228221146.T23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000229004205.16839.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000229004205.16839.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 04:42:05PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 04:42:05PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > DeCSS implements an idea. > > > > So does any act of first degree murder. > And as such, murder does not constitute a breach of _copyright_ laws. > See the discussion regarding obscenity in the other thread. And you're still twisting facts to help you rationalize conclusions. Your point was that an implementation of an idea and a communication of an idea were the same thing. I disagreed with a real-world example. > > What ideas, exactly, does DeCSS communicate? > > DeCSS the executable, communicates an interface to the user, accepts > input from the user, and then helps the users read the selected .vob > file format. You didn't answer the question, Bryan. I don't see the word "idea" anywhere in your answer, so let me repeat the question: What ideas, exactly, does DeCSS communicate?? Please. State specifically what ideas are being communicated. Please do not try to redefine the words "communicate" or "idea"; either a legal definition or Websters will suit just fine. Hell, I'd be happy if you simply gave your own definitions out in the open. Please do not respond with "see the other thread, we discussed it there". All I'm asking for is a simple answer to the above question. Humor me. > > Anyway, Canada decided that it was obscene. Certain powers tried to > > do the same here, and the attempt was shut down before it even really > > gathered steam. The reason for this is because people recognized the > > difference between communicating an idea and implementing one. > > The first step to burning people is burning books. Boo-hiss for Canada. I don't believe I said anything good about Canada. It was *we* that realized the differences between communication and implementation, not they. > > And now, thanks to the miracle of independent film, we get to watch > > it on the big screen this summer. Yippee for our side. > > If you don't like the book, don't go to the movie. BTW, are you sure > that it is an independent movie? Trust me, I won't. It's being put out by Lions Gate. I believe these guys are their own outfit; they're the guys who put out Dogma when Disney killed it. They may be funded by a larger studio, but I don't think so. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 22:13:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA11876 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:13:08 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA11873 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:13:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 13027 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 03:13:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229031358.13026.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:13:58 PST Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:13:58 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Performance To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > As it stands, 1201(c)(1) seems to place the entire Section 1201 within > the limits defined in 106. > > Oh, my. A fulcrum, it seems. > It seems like a lot of law would be needed to provide guidance on how the mechanics of a copyrighter's access control right is handled. Basically 1201(a)(3)(A) refers to a copyright holder's right to grant access through an access control system. The actual foundation for this is wholely missing and non-trivial. Many issues that should be clarified explicitly inthe law that aren't: fair use, the limitation on copyright length, termination conditions, how to handle shared access control systems when the desires of the copyright holders diverge. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 22:28:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA13944 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:28:24 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA13929 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:28:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 312 invoked by uid 502); 29 Feb 2000 03:33:30 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:33:30 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Performance Message-ID: <20000228223330.X23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000229031358.13026.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000229031358.13026.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 07:13:58PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 07:13:58PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > As it stands, 1201(c)(1) seems to place the entire Section 1201 > within > > the limits defined in 106. > > > > Oh, my. A fulcrum, it seems. > > > > It seems like a lot of law would be needed to provide guidance on how > the mechanics of a copyrighter's access control right is handled. > Basically 1201(a)(3)(A) refers to a copyright holder's right to grant > access through an access control system. The actual foundation for this > is wholely missing and non-trivial. > > Many issues that should be clarified explicitly inthe law that aren't: > fair use, the limitation on copyright length, termination conditions, > how to handle shared access control systems when the desires of the > copyright holders diverge. Well, that's what happens when you try to shoehorn a century of national copyright law into a newly-created foreign treaty (WIPO). It just ain't ever gonna fit just right. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 22:37:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA15217 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:37:21 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA15213 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:37:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 2185 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 03:38:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229033811.2184.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:38:11 PST Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:38:11 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > I've been made aware lately that 1201 was enacted under the authority > of the Commerce Clause rather than the Copyright Clause, according to > the legislators who contributed to the bill (including Rep. Tom > Bliley, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce). This is sort of > important, because Commerce lets the government have lots of room to > move that they don't have under Copyright. I think they said it was both, and called it 'paracopyright'. In any event, even if they use another power to justify it, they may not use general powers to override specific limitations. For example, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9 gives Congress the power "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court". The commerce power cannot then be interpreted to allow Congress to create commerce tribunals superior to the Supreme Court. Similarly, any restrictions on power inherent in the copyright's clauses restrict power on the commerce cluase as well. Copyright is inherently commercial, but has the added burden of balancing first amendment issues. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 22:38:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA15569 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:38:45 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA15566 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:38:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 1196 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 03:39:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229033938.1195.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.65] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:39:38 PST Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:39:38 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Dana Parker wrote: > Any body see the article in ZDNet this am? They use the analogy of > fencing in a > public sidewalk. See > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2449300,00.html?chkpt=zdnn022800 Yes, it is a VERY GOOD analogy. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 28 22:43:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA17160 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:43:40 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA17157 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:43:39 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA30503 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:43:01 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02650; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:07:08 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Date: 28 Feb 2000 19:06:03 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 7 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <89fd2r$2ip$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000228154933.17217.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000228154933.17217.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com>, Bryan Taylor wrote: > At pressent CSS is not patented, to my knowledge. I should hope not. It's been claimed as a trade secret. Trade secret and patent protection are mutually incompatible, if I understand correctly. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 00:27:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA11581 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:27:53 -0500 Received: from shell.nacs.net (root@shell.nacs.net [207.166.192.99]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA11578 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:27:52 -0500 Received: (from jasonf@localhost) by shell.nacs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15662 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:26:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:26:31 -0500 From: "Jason M. Felice" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jury trial Message-ID: <20000229002631.G9354@nacs.net> References: <200002281919.LAA11901@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002281919.LAA11901@ns1.filetron.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 11:19:49AM -0800, Rares Marian wrote: > Bryan Taylor wrote: > >It appears that the defendants have the right, under the 7th Amendment > >to a jury trial if they so desire, by analogy with the case below. This > >might be better than letting Kaplan decide things. Comments? > > While Kaplan is no idiot, I vote on a trial. Kaplan needs to be deprogrammed. A trial would extend things long enough for the case to be fully fleshed out. He's already mistaken one clause for another. IANAL, but I think we can work with Kaplan: 1) As you say, he is no idiot. 2) He may have made a few minor mistakes, but given that the only decision he's made so far (the preliminary injunction) only one side presented argument on, you'd have to be silly to expect him not to have. This isn't to mention we'd probably have to challenge the law (we really should regardless of whether we have to), and his ruling was only on the interpretation of the law and made no claims as to whether the law was valid. 3) I dislike juries for really technical cases. The MPAA has a large PR engine and will have slogans and memes to fall back on, which will have an effect if for no other reasons than, when the nitty-gritty tech bits start flying, some jurors brains might miss a beat (which any programmer can tell you can hork one's entire grasp of the subject). Can you challenge the constitutionality of a law with a jury? Doesn't a judge have to make that ruling? I nearly flunked government, but I don't see how we can make anything stick long-term without a judge's decision on the law itself. -Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice > ---------------------- > Do you do Linux? :) > Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 01:30:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA21885 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:30:23 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA21882 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:30:22 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA12467 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:31:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38BB6771.E0089BEA@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:30:09 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jury trial References: <200002281919.LAA11901@ns1.filetron.com> <20000229002631.G9354@nacs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > 3) I dislike juries for really technical cases. The MPAA has a large PR > engine and will have slogans and memes to fall back on, which will have > an effect if for no other reasons than, when the nitty-gritty tech bits > start flying, some jurors brains might miss a beat (which any programmer > can tell you can hork one's entire grasp of the subject). > Can you challenge the constitutionality of a law with a jury? Doesn't > a judge have to make that ruling? I nearly flunked government, but I > don't see how we can make anything stick long-term without a judge's > decision on the law itself.- With all due respect, I think you may be underestimating the ability of a jury to see what a bad law Title 17 (DMCA) is. I think getting the real issues out in the open, finally, can only help the cause. All you have to do is point out that the law makes VCRs retroactively illegal and has broad and undesirable future implications for people who want to use the content they have legally purchased in any way they want. There's no reason whatsoever why people should not be able to transfer a DVD to a VCR for the kids to watch in their room - people transfer CD audio to cassettes all the time, and that's not illegal. There's no reason why you should not be able to take a clip or a still shot from a DVD that you own and store it on your computer for your own use. To say that it is illegal to do so is like saying that you can't legally buy a print of an oil painting, take a digital picture of it, and use it as a screen saver or desktop wallpaper. Only the Supreme Court can decide whether a law is constitutional or not. Remember, the Betamax decision went all the way to the SCOTUS for a final decision, which overturned the 9th circuit decision. I hope the EFF has the resources to take it that far, but they shouldn't have to. Unfortunately it may be the only way to neutralize the chilling effects of the DMCA on the sharing of all kinds of information. When it comes right down to it, this case doesn't have to be that technical. What matters is that we the people (and the people on the jury) have the right to do something (copy for personal use and fair use) that doesn't financially harm anyone's copyright or market for the original or copies thereof, and that benefits many who may have had no other recourse to information. With the "digital divide" being such a hot topic right now, people may be more likely than ever to recognize the need for promoting "science and the useful arts" through freer access, rather than locking up content (which, BTW, may owe quite a bit to public domain content itself, as in many Disney movies, and any other movie based on any literary work that has passed into the public domain - like Shakespeare and Austen, for just two examples). The DMCA has abrogated that right and the possibility of access by making it illegal to defeat copy protection measures in order to exercise the fair use rights we once had. (Yes, I know fair use is not officially a constitutionally defined "right", but nonetheless it exists as a widely recognized, desirable common -law doctrine that balances the statutory right of copyright). In short, I don't think the MPAA has quite the public sympathy you assume they have. The MPAA would like to believe they represent "culture" in the US; I don't think that opinion is shared by the masses. I think the masses (the people, your jury) think they are out of touch; I think the masses are tired of Hollywood telling them what their culture is. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 02:35:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA32130 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:35:12 -0500 Received: from rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE (rz03.RZ-FDDI.FH-Karlsruhe.DE [193.196.125.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA32127 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:35:10 -0500 Received: from gara0013 by rz03.FH-Karlsruhe.DE with local (Exim 3.03 #2) id 12PhCQ-0002g0-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:36:06 +0100 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 29 Feb 100 08:36:06 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20000228171119.F23265@linuxpower.org> from "greslin@linuxpower.org" at Feb 28, 0 05:11:19 pm From: Sham Gardner X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 07:32:40AM -0700, root wrote: > > > > (*) Not counting the copy in your head. > > Which isn't legally a copy. 17 USC 101 defines a copy in terms of being in a > fixed form as a material object. It also defines "fixed" as: > > "A work is ''fixed'' in a tangible medium of expression when its > embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of > the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to > be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period > of more than transitory duration." > > Please, no more of this "copy in your head" business. :) The courts may view this differently, but while having a useable "copy in your head" of a video or sound recording may not be possible, since you'd be unable to reproduce it, the same canot be said for books. Yes for most people it would take a great deal of effort to memorise a book word for word over an extended period of time, but it is quite possible and a reproduction would be perfect. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 02:42:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA00743 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:42:11 -0500 Received: from arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.68.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA00740 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:42:10 -0500 Received: by arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6D86376EA; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:43:32 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Barker To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:34:41 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000228154933.17217.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> <89fd2r$2ip$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <89fd2r$2ip$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00022901433200.23814@arh1176.urh.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, David A. Wagner wrote: > In article <20000228154933.17217.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com>, > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > At pressent CSS is not patented, to my knowledge. > > I should hope not. It's been claimed as a trade secret. > Trade secret and patent protection are mutually incompatible, > if I understand correctly. Well, I think different IP is protected by different laws. Both are (alegedly) violated by DeCSS. The DVD CCA claims that the CSS algorithm and possibly the keys it uses (not sure which) were trade secrets and as such are illegal to distribute. The MPAA claims that DeCSS is illegal to distribute (under the DMCA) because it can be used to circumvent CSS which is intended to protect the copyright on their movies. These two claims have very little to do with each other and don't rely on the same laws. I do wonder what views people have on the California case. There has been no discussion of it on the list. Does everyone think it is to far fetched to bother? Might this case have action sooner than the New York one (since it was filed earlier)? -- Steven Barker scbarker@uiuc.edu Debug is human, de-fix divine. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 03:48:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA13604 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:48:41 -0500 Received: from shadow.csufresno.edu (relay-1.csufresno.edu [129.8.57.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA13601 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:48:39 -0500 Received: from lennon.csufresno.edu (smb23@lennon.csufresno.edu [129.8.57.50]) by shadow.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02506 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:49:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (smb23@localhost) by lennon.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA27012 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:49:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:49:27 -0800 (PST) From: Steve M Bibayoff To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jury trial In-Reply-To: <38BB6771.E0089BEA@cdpage.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Dana Parker wrote: > "Jason M. Felice" wrote: > > > 3) I dislike juries for really technical cases. The MPAA has a large PR > > engine and will have slogans and memes to fall back on, which will have > > an effect if for no other reasons than, when the nitty-gritty tech bits > > start flying, some jurors brains might miss a beat (which any programmer > > can tell you can hork one's entire grasp of the subject). > > Can you challenge the constitutionality of a law with a jury? Doesn't > > a judge have to make that ruling? I nearly flunked government, but I > > don't see how we can make anything stick long-term without a judge's > > decision on the law itself.- > > With all due respect, I think you may be underestimating the ability of a jury You still must take into account, the judge still decides what the jurors WILL and WILL NOT hear. And I personnally would assume the MPAA would object to every piece of testominy. Just take a look at some of the cases where eveyone wonders how a jury could produce such findings. Just food for thought Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 10:23:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA27230 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:23:06 -0500 Received: from mason2.gmu.edu (mason2.gmu.edu [129.174.1.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA27227 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:23:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by mason2.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA32306 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:24:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:24:00 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin X-Sender: jerwin@mason2.gmu.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright In-Reply-To: <20000229033811.2184.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > I've been made aware lately that 1201 was enacted under the authority > > of the Commerce Clause rather than the Copyright Clause, according to > > > the legislators who contributed to the bill (including Rep. Tom > > Bliley, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce). This is sort of > > important, because Commerce lets the government have lots of room to > > move that they don't have under Copyright. > > I think they said it was both, and called it 'paracopyright'. In any > event, even if they use another power to justify it, they may not use > general powers to override specific limitations. > Bliley's remarks may be read in full in http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=E2136&dbname=1998_record I think that's 105 Congressional Record E2136-E2139 (1998) Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 11:09:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA08513 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:09:41 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA08382 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:09:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 15165 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 16:10:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229161035.15164.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:10:34 PST Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:10:34 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- breeve@ibm.net wrote: > Held in Quality King: The first sale doctrine endorsed in §109(a) is > applicable to imported copies. Pp. 3-18. > > The case started as an action for infringement..... Yes, but not infringement by making 'copies'. They were trying to import _originals_ purchased outside the US. Similarly, DeCSS tries to access encrypted material after first sale. It is not clear that after 'first sale' that the right to exclusively grant access permission can be retained. The law is silent on the matter, and as the 'exclusive rights' retained are solely statutory, this should imply that no such right is retained. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 11:28:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14798 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:28:47 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA14795 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:28:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 18276 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 16:29:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229162942.18275.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:29:42 PST Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:29:42 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ian Hay wrote: > > See my post on the Quality King v. L'Anza case [...] > > This is an interesting case, but I ought to point out that the -very > first line- excludes it from the class of cases I was looking for. > Please note in my post above the words "where there was no > corresponding action for copyright infringment", and the first line of the > case below the headnote, "Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act of 1976 > (Act), 17 U.S.C. § 106(3), gives the owner of a copyright the exclusive > right to distribute copies of a copyrighted work." This is an action for > copyright infringment. I agree it's not exactly what you asked for. The claim was coyright infringement, true, not for making unathorized copies, but for importing authorized copies without permission. This is analogous to what DeCSS does if you change 'importing' to 'descrambling'. > Also, the very brief discussion of fair use was nowhere close to > determinative in this case. You are mistaking "first sale" with > "fair use". In fact, it's very important to understand that 'fair use' was not applicable in Quality King, and that 'the authority of the copyright holder' is also required by law to import as it is to have non-circumventing access. Fair use and first sale are clearly related concepts. The point is that the exlusive rights held by the copyright holder are limited, and are purely statutory. We need a way to claim that the MPAA doesn't retain as much control as they claim they do. This case might not be what you asked for, but it might give you what you want. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 12:01:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA22380 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:01:11 -0500 Received: from web506.mail.yahoo.com (web506.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA22335 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:01:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 5652 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 17:02:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229170201.5651.qmail@web506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web506.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:02:01 PST Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:02:01 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- breeve@ibm.net wrote: > "paracopyright" I think we all agree is a kind of mysterious new word. I think the Constitutional line of attack is that there is no "paracopyright" power granted by the Constitution. > --- Separate that out.... a) any additional scope. It certainly > provides additional scope to possible legislative enactments. I disagree. Every elemental cause of action Congress makes must be justified by at least one power stated in the Constitution. This is the 10th amendment. Copyright provides one set of allowable actions. Commerce provides another. By combining them, the set of allowable actions is the union of these two sets, and doesn't mysteriously expand. > > Distributing non-commercial GPL access control tools could arguably > > be outside of this range, especially if you read Thomas's concurrance > > in Lopez. > > --- Well..... it would be tough to say that circumvention / non > issues are not sufficiently connected to commerce. Again, I'm saying they are not connected to commerce in any sense that is not already covered by their connection to copyright commerce. The act and manner of distributing a GPL program does not add any 'handles' for the commerce clause to grab. > >2) The extent to which access control involves commerce is exactly > > the extent to which it can lead to sale-depriving activity already > > covered under copyright law. > > --- Probably not. Indeed we probably don't even want to argue this > equality. Nor would I be sure that "sale-depriving" will turn out to be a > helpful concept in this context. Well, I, for one, want to argue this equality. Can you elaborate on your objections a little? All you basically said was "no it's not". > > In other words, the commerce power overlaps the > >copyright law fully in this area. A broad commerce power is already > >inherent in the copyright power and referencing the commerce clause > >doesn't expand the scope of it any. > > --- Clearly the two powers do not "overlap" in a literal sense. Huh? Copyright grants a commercial monopoly to an author. It's entire essence is commerce. > So, what is the difference between "circumvention" and "conjunction"? When a narrow power includes a limitation, that limitation applies as well to the general power within the context of the narrow one. > General powers cannot override specific limitations on power. > > ---- Absolutely correct general principle. Can it be applied here so > as to stick? The copyright/patent clause creates two forms of IP, each with careful restrictions and limitations. For example, both apply for 'limited times' and are subordinate to 'the progress of science'. Copyright cannot extend to ideas and facts. Patents can, but require full disclosure. Congress cannot decide that it doesn't like being forced to use limited powers, waive it's hands and create a 'paracopyright' power that isn't on the same tradeoff curve. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 12:27:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA27925 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:27:51 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA27912 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:27:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 1618 invoked by uid 502); 29 Feb 2000 17:33:03 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:33:03 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Message-ID: <20000229123303.Z23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000223122140.A2032@localhost> <38B44EDE.A4FBB5D9@sympatico.ca> <20000223155436.A763@localhost> <20000225124250.R28173@nacs.net> <20000228163734.C23265@linuxpower.org> <38BAF3E4.DAC89DE4@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <38BAF3E4.DAC89DE4@sympatico.ca>; from Ian Hay on Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 05:17:08PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 05:17:08PM -0500, Ian Hay wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote: > > > I'm following the issues of fair use, but even though fair use is a defense > > > and not a right, could an argument be made to a judge (of course it could, > > > but reasonably) that fair use should be allowed as a defense against > > > circumvention? > > > > I've been doing some reading on fair use. To be totally honest, even though > > fair use isn't a legally defined "right", per se, it might as well be. The > > courts, over and over again, have used "fair use" as the discriminating factor > > in cases that had no direct infringement bearings. > > Really? If there are cases where 'fair use' was judicially applied > where there was no corresponding action for copyright infringment, this > would be VERY useful. Do you have any case names? Uh. I could have sworn I saw those cases over the weekend, but I can't find them now. I might have dreamed it, or maybe I was simply on the good drugs. I'll keep looking, but every one of the cases I've gone back and looked through began as a copyright infringement case. Sorry for the misinformation, guys. Even Sony vs. Universal started out as a "contributory infringement" case. As I said, I'll keep looking. :) Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 13:07:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA04456 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:07:21 -0500 Received: from web504.mail.yahoo.com (web504.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA04453 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:07:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 8987 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 18:08:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229180811.8986.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web504.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:08:11 PST Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:08:11 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Your point was that an implementation of an idea and a communication > of an idea were the same thing. I disagreed with a real-world example. No, my point is that copyright law cannot give ownership of ideas. Whether you communicate or merely use the ideas is irrelevent. Please stop changing my points. While it is true that DeCSS.exe does not communicate the idea of how the method works, it is not required to. The source code does this, and the executable proves it works, a reasonable goal in the middle of a development activity such as LiViD. DeCSS is banned solely because the idea it implements has become a new form of intellectual property of the MPAA. The original claim I made is that DeCSS is enjoined under an overextended IP power, when it, in fact, deserves full protection for it's own copyright, which includes distribution authority. The sole basis for the denial of the distribution right is the 'paracopyright' IP claim on the _idea_ therein. Neither the commerce power nor copyright allows monopolies on ideas, so you can't mix the two and suddenly create a power that allows it. Even if you argue commerce allows it, copyright forbids it, so you still don't get it when you mix the two. Murder is banned, not because the idea of murder is intellectual property, but because the government has police powers and a compelling state interest to protect the right to life of it's citizens. This rebuts nothing I said. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 13:07:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA04461 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:07:25 -0500 Received: from mason2.gmu.edu (mason2.gmu.edu [129.174.1.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA04458 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:07:24 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by mason2.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA24643 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:08:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:08:19 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin X-Sender: jerwin@mason2.gmu.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Apologies if this is in the FAQ, but suppose the following situation occurs: Suppose ACME Digital Video, a new startup, decides to build a DVD player (hardware). Suppose that ACME D.V. pays its million yen to aquire a completely legitimate CSS licence from DVDCCA. How does ACME D.V. ensure that it's player can reproduce a CSS encoded DVD released prior to its license application? Is ACME simply given the right to use a hitherto unused key in the 400-key-block? If that's the case, what happens when all 400 keys have been used up? Is the number of licenses limited to (400- invalidated keys)? Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 13:27:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09905 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:27:05 -0500 Received: from web507.mail.yahoo.com (web507.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA09897 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:27:02 -0500 Received: (qmail 16502 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 18:27:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229182751.16501.qmail@web507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web507.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:27:51 PST Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:27:51 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Steven Barker wrote: > I do wonder what views people have on the California case. There has > been no discussion of it on the list. Does everyone think it is to far > fetched to bother? Might this case have action sooner than the New > York one (since it was filed earlier)? Frank Stevenson's code can extract all 400 keys using no prior knowledge and nothing other than a DVD. The whole arguement in CA depends on the XingDVD clickwrap licence, which is demonstrably not needed to create DeCSS. See Stevenson's declaration http://cryptome.org/dvd-stevenson.htm Even if Johansen et al used Xing's player, there are very strong precedents that say reverse engineering is legal. It would have to be illegal in both Norway and CA. Johansen was questioned by police, but to my knowledge, he has not been charged, even though he stipulated to most of what he was accused of. Unless this happens, it seems rediculous for a CA court to assume he misappropriated any trade secrets. The CSS code has been published after being legally obtained from court records before they were sealed, so any trade secret is now public knowledge, independant of Frank's crack. You can get this code in exhibit B from http://cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 13:34:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA12250 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:34:53 -0500 Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts1.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.139]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA12247 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:34:52 -0500 Received: from sympatico.ca ([206.172.235.33]) by tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20000229183516.XQPK13123.tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:35:16 -0500 Message-ID: <38BC12BE.5568A3F0@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:41:02 -0500 From: Ian Hay Organization: Springfield Police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. References: <20000229162942.18275.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Ian Hay wrote: > > > > See my post on the Quality King v. L'Anza case [...] > > > > This is an interesting case, but I ought to point out that the -very > > first line- excludes it from the class of cases I was looking for. > > Please note in my post above the words "where there was no > > corresponding action for copyright infringment", and the first line > of the > > case below the headnote, "Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act of 1976 > > (Act), 17 U.S.C. § 106(3), gives the owner of a copyright the > exclusive > > right to distribute copies of a copyrighted work." This is an action > for > > copyright infringment. > > I agree it's not exactly what you asked for. The claim was coyright > infringement, true, not for making unathorized copies, but for > importing authorized copies without permission. This is analogous to > what DeCSS does if you change 'importing' to 'descrambling'. Brian, it is NOT ANALOGOUS AT ALL. You cannot simply change 'importing' to 'descrambling' because you like it that way. There is an important, key, material difference between them: 'importing' is among the listed exclusive rights of a copyright holder. As such, doing any 'importing' is "copyright infringment", and fair use defenses apply to it as such; 'descrambling' is a separate prohibition that, while it is contained in Title 17, is NOT "copyright infringment", and thus 'fair use' defences -may or may not- apply to it. The prohibition in 1201 might as well be buried in insurance or estates legislation - it happens to be in 1201 because that is the Title to which the prohibition relates. "descrambling" is not copyright infringment, it is a violation of the prohibition set out in 1201. Further, your distinction between 'act of copying' and 'importing' is completely irrelevant and totally ignores the structure of the copyright statute: "copyright infringment" is defined and ONLY defined as doing an act which is within the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. You cannot lump 'importing' with 'descrambling', where it does not belong, and divorce it from 'acts of copying', where it -does- belong as "infringment", just because you like the way it plays out in these discussions. > > Also, the very brief discussion of fair use was nowhere close to > > determinative in this case. You are mistaking "first sale" with > > "fair use". > > In fact, it's very important to understand that 'fair use' was not > applicable in Quality King, and that 'the authority of the copyright > holder' is also required by law to import as it is to have > non-circumventing access. > > Fair use and first sale are clearly related concepts. The point is that > the exlusive rights held by the copyright holder are limited, and are > purely statutory. We need a way to claim that the MPAA doesn't retain > as much control as they claim they do. This case might not be what you > asked for, but it might give you what you want. As I said in my previous post, Quality King is an interesting case that bears further scrutiny, and may well be useful to us for the reasons you've outlined. But what I'm trying to communicate to you is that the claims that "copyright is purely statutory" (which is true) and the "exclusive rights of the copyright holder are limited" (also true) make very little sense when used as arguments to demonstrate that a STATUTE which EXTENDS the rights of the copyright holder is invalid for that reason. You: "1201 is invalid because it is inconsistent with the limitations on exclusive rights of copyright holders." Me: "Why does that make it invalid?" You: "copyright is a creature of statute." Me: "1201 is a creature of statute." You: "Title 17 and the case law place limits on exclusive rights." Me: "1201 has the effect of extending those exclusive rights." You: "but that's inconsitent with Title 17 and the case law pre-1201." Me: "Yes, and Congress enacted 1201. Congress is allowed to do that." You: "Unless prohibited by the Constitution." Me: "You're the one who argued that the exclusive rights of a copyright holder are a creature of statute." -- ____ | | Ian R. Hay |____| Toronto, Canada From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 13:41:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14252 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:41:52 -0500 Received: from web508.mail.yahoo.com (web508.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA14248 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:41:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 14236 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 18:42:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229184246.14235.qmail@web508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web508.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:42:46 PST Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:42:46 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] House Legislative History on 1201(f) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 105th Congress Rept. 105-551 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 2 _________________________________________________________ DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998 _______ July 22, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed _________________________________________________________ Mr. Bliley, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 2281] <<< SNIP >>> ------------ --- Comments in the report on Reverse Engineering follow --- This refers to Section 102(f) which became 1201(f) ------------ (f) Reverse engineering Section 102(f) is intended to promote reverse engineering by permitting the circumvention of access control technologies for the sole purpose of achieving software interoperability. Section 102(f)(1) permits the act of circumvention in only certain instances. To begin with, the copy of the computer program which is the subject of the analysis must be lawfully acquired (i.e., the computer program must be acquired from a legitimate source, along with any necessary serial codes, passwords, or other such means as may be necessary to be able to use the program as it was designed to be used by a consumer of the product). In addition, the acts must be limited to those elements of the program which must be analyzed to achieve interoperability of an independently created program with other programs. The resulting product must also be a new and original work, in that it may not infringe the original computer program. Moreover, the objective of the analysis must be to identify and extract such elements as are necessary to achieve interoperability which are not otherwise available to the person. Finally, the goal of this section is to ensure that current law is not changed, and not to encourage or permit infringement. Thus, each of the acts undertaken must avoid infringing the copyright of the author of the underlying computer program. Section 102(f)(2) recognizes that, to accomplish the acts permitted under Section 102(f)(1), a person may need to make and use certain tools. The Committee believes that such tools are generally available and used by programmers today in developing computer programs (e.g., compilers, trace analyzers, and disassemblers). Such tools are not prohibited by this Section. But the Committee also recognizes that, in certain instances, it is possible that a person may need to develop special tools to achieve the permitted purpose of interoperability. Thus, Section 102(f)(2) creates an exception to the prohibition on making circumvention tools contained in Sections 102(a)(2) and 102(b)(1). These excepted tools can be either software or hardware. Once again, though, Section 102(f)(2) limits any person from acting in a way that constitutes infringing activity. Similarly, Section 102(f)(3) recognizes that developing complex computer programs often involves the efforts of many persons. For example, some of these persons may be hired to develop a specific portion of the final product. For that person to perform these tasks, some of the information acquired through the permitted analysis, and the tools to accomplish it, may have to be made available to that person. Section 102(f)(3) allows developers of independently created software to rely on third parties either to develop the necessary circumvention tools, or to identify the necessary information to achieve interoperability. The ability to rely on third parties is particularly important for small software developers who do not have the capability of performing these functions in-house. This provision permits such sharing of information and tools. The Committee, however, recognizes that making such information or tools generally available could undermine the objectives of Section 102. Section 102(f)(3) therefore imposes strict limitations on the exceptions created in Section 102(f). Acts of sharing information and tools is permitted solely for the purpose of achieving interoperability of an independently createdcomputer program with other programs. If a person makes this information available for a purpose other than to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, then such action is a violation of this Act. In addition, these acts are permitted only to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement, or violate other applicable law. Section 102(f)(4) defines ``interoperability'' as the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and for such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. The seamless exchange of information is a key element of software interoperability. Hence, Section 102(f) applies to computer programs as such, regardless of their medium of fixation and not to works generally, such as music or audiovisual works, which may be fixed and distributed in digital form. Because the goal of interoperability is the touchstone of the exceptions contained in Section 102(f), the Committee emphasizes that nothing in those subsections can be read to authorize the circumvention of any technological protection measure that controls access to any work other than a computer program, or the trafficking in products or services for that purpose. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 13:50:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA17385 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:50:16 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA17354 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:50:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 16923 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 18:51:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229185107.16922.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:51:07 PST Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:51:07 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Senate Legislative History on 1201(f) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 105th Congress Report SENATE 2d Session 105-190 __________________________________________________________ THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998 _______ May 11, 1998.--Ordered to be printed _________________________________________________________ Mr. Hatch, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany S. 2037] <<< SNIP >>> ---- It appears that 1201(g)-(j) were eventually renumbered to 1201(f) Reverse engineering Sections 1201(g)-(j) are intended to allow legitimate software developers to continue engaging in certain activities for the purpose of achieving interoperability to the extent permitted by law prior to the enactment of this chapter. The objective is to ensure that the effect of current case law interpreting the Copyright Act is not changed by enactment of this legislation for certain acts of identification and analysis done in respect of computer programs. See, Sega Enterprises Ltd. v Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1561 (9th Cir. 1992.). The purpose of this section is to foster competition and innovation in the computer and software industry. _____________________________________________________ Here's a link to Sega Enterprises Ltd. v Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1561 (9th Cir. 1992.) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&f=2&invol=1510&vol=977&exact=1 Quick summary: Accolade decompiled and reverse engineered Sega products to determine interface requirements so that it could create it's own games that would play on Sega machines. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 14:16:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA26029 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:16:02 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA26026 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:16:00 -0500 Received: (qmail 1743 invoked by uid 502); 29 Feb 2000 19:21:10 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:21:10 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Message-ID: <20000229142110.B23265@linuxpower.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Jeremy A Erwin on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 01:08:19PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 01:08:19PM -0500, Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > Apologies if this is in the FAQ, but suppose the following situation > occurs: > > Suppose ACME Digital Video, a new startup, decides to build a DVD > player (hardware). Suppose that ACME D.V. pays its million yen to aquire a > completely legitimate CSS licence from DVDCCA. > > How does ACME D.V. ensure that it's player can reproduce a CSS encoded > DVD released prior to its license application? Is ACME simply given the > right to use a hitherto unused key in the 400-key-block? If that's the > case, what happens when all 400 keys have been used up? Logically speaking, no one gets new licenses. To create completely new keys would mean reprinting every DVD currently in circulation. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 14:29:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29347 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:29:05 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29225 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:29:03 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA31422 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu\; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:39:15 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:39:15 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Message-ID: <20000229113915.B31208@duskglow.com> References: <20000229142110.B23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000229142110.B23265@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:21:10PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:21:10PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Logically speaking, no one gets new licenses. To create completely new > keys would mean reprinting every DVD currently in circulation. > Either that or just take the key away from a small company and redistribute it. Or double up. It's just another inherent design weakness of the CSS. Or, more accurately, a consequence of a design flaw. --Russell > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 14:29:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29417 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:29:41 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29414 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:29:39 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA31436 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:39:52 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:39:15 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Message-ID: <20000229113915.B31208@duskglow.com> References: <20000229142110.B23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000229142110.B23265@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:21:10PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:21:10PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > Logically speaking, no one gets new licenses. To create completely new > keys would mean reprinting every DVD currently in circulation. > Either that or just take the key away from a small company and redistribute it. Or double up. It's just another inherent design weakness of the CSS. Or, more accurately, a consequence of a design flaw. --Russell > > Rob Warren > greslin@linuxpower.org > www.iag.net/~aleris -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 14:31:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29677 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:31:00 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29669 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:30:58 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA31460 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:41:11 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:41:10 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] sorry for the double posts there. Message-ID: <20000229114110.A31440@duskglow.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I guess backslashes in the to: line get stripped. Sorry bout that. -- Russell miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 14:51:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03889 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:51:58 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA03879 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:51:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 1776 invoked by uid 502); 29 Feb 2000 19:57:13 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:57:13 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First Amendment Limits To Copyright Message-ID: <20000229145713.C23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000229180811.8986.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000229180811.8986.qmail@web504.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 10:08:11AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > Your point was that an implementation of an idea and a communication > > of an idea were the same thing. I disagreed with a real-world > example. > > No, my point is that copyright law cannot give ownership of ideas. > Whether you communicate or merely use the ideas is irrelevent. Please > stop changing my points. This is what you said: "Perhaps Kaplan went too far in his "balancing" theory weighing the First Amendment vs. Copyright. While it is true that courts have rejected many First Amendment challenges to federal copyright powers, the Supreme Court has been careful to note that in doing so, the deciding criterion was if the speech denied sale-rights and financial interests verses merely communicating ideas and concepts. They have always drawn a clear line that "an idea or concept" must be protected. DeCSS implements an idea." This sounds to me a lot more like they've been careful to protect free speech (i.e., First Amendment issues, hence the name of this thread), rather than the sanctity of ideas. Absolutely anything done, built or engineered is the implementation of an idea; not all of that communicates idea. At the same time, eliminating something that merely implements but does not communicate an idea does not damage the idea, per se. When I pointed out that communication and implementation were different things, and asked you what idea was being communicated, your response was "it communicates an interface", which I'm sure you know is nonsense for purposes of arguing that 1201 steps on First Amendment rights. Forgive me if I'm truly missing your point. But you're doing a lot of shifting, redefining and rationalization to reach it. That's what I take exception to. Ever seen the Simpson's ep where a cat burgler is terrorizing the town? The cops are stumped. They're looking at the "big board" - a map of the town with all the crimes tacked up with pushpins: "No, chief, I don't see a pattern here." "Okay.. but wait a minute. If we move this pin over here, and this one over here, and this one there.. hey.. it almost looks like an arrow!" "Where's it pointing to, Chief?" "OH MY GOD! IT'S POINTING RIGHT AT THIS STATIONHOUSE! EVERYBODY RUN!" See *my* point? :) > While it is true that DeCSS.exe does not communicate the idea of how > the method works, it is not required to. The source code does this, and > the executable proves it works, a reasonable goal in the middle of a > development activity such as LiViD. So far it appears that the New York case is not going after source code, per se, but the executable binary. That's at least what the injunction hearing transcript seems to say. This may change when we get into court. If so, then we can have a field day arguing First Amendment issues over the source code. I don't think we've got a prayer in hell of arguing First Amendment over the binary. > DeCSS is banned solely because the idea it implements has become a new > form of intellectual property of the MPAA. The original claim I made is > that DeCSS is enjoined under an overextended IP power, when it, in > fact, deserves full protection for it's own copyright, which includes > distribution authority. The sole basis for the denial of the > distribution right is the 'paracopyright' IP claim on the _idea_ > therein. Neither the commerce power nor copyright allows monopolies on > ideas, so you can't mix the two and suddenly create a power that allows > it. Even if you argue commerce allows it, copyright forbids it, so you > still don't get it when you mix the two. My point is that someone who downloads DeCSS isn't going to run it and get any startling ideas about cryptography or anything else. If you're going to claim that DeCSS can't be banned because it is more an idea than a "little black box", great. But you need to build a better logic to get there than what you're presenting here. > Murder is banned, not because the idea of murder is intellectual > property, but because the government has police powers and a compelling > state interest to protect the right to life of it's citizens. This > rebuts nothing I said. This wasn't my point, and you well know it. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 14:58:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA04952 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:58:34 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA04949 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:58:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 21062 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 19:55:05 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 19:55:05 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA19253; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:59:39 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:59:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200002291959.LAA19253@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker wrote: >greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >> > Could you do this if YOU owned the store? What if you owned the book >> > and the store owner refused to cooperate to give it to you? What if you >> > could remove the window, take the book, and replace the window without >> > causing financial loss to the owner? What if you persuaded someone >> > inside the window to hold the book up to the window so you could read >> > it? >> >> You could probably be nailed for trespassing. The courts would say that >> rather than taking the law into your own hands, you should have dealt >> with the owner in civil court. >> >> Of course, this is not the case for your last question. :) >> >> Rob Warren >> greslin@linuxpower.org >> www.iag.net/~aleris > >Any body see the article in ZDNet this am? They use the analogy of fencing in a >public sidewalk. See >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2449300,00.html?chkpt=zdnn022800 > The original argument is flawed. A book in a window doesn't restrict anything. If you walk in during normal business hours, then you can buy the book. Plus you have no rights to that book until after you've paid for it. I think this is a wild goose chase. Now oddly enough the person who should be suing if there were any restriction is the author and the person to sue is the shop owner since then that shop owner is restricting his freedom of speech. >-- >Dana J. Parker >Consultant >http://www.cdpage.com >Contributing editor/standards columnist >Emedia magazine >http://www.emediapro.net >DVD PRO Conference Chair >http://www.dvdpro.net >I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression >http://www.eff.org/cafe > >mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com > > Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 15:04:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA06196 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:04:01 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA06193 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:03:59 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA03471 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:04:52 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:04:52 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Message-ID: <20000229140452.A3460@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000229142110.B23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000229142110.B23265@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > How does ACME D.V. ensure that it's player can reproduce a CSS encoded > > DVD released prior to its license application? Is ACME simply given the > > right to use a hitherto unused key in the 400-key-block? If that's the > > case, what happens when all 400 keys have been used up? > > Logically speaking, no one gets new licenses. To create completely new > keys would mean reprinting every DVD currently in circulation. > Doesn't it seem more likely that some of the 400 keys aren't allocated yet, and are held by DVD-CCA for future licensees? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 15:20:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11739 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:20:10 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA11707 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:20:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 1879 invoked by uid 502); 29 Feb 2000 20:25:26 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:25:26 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Message-ID: <20000229152526.D23265@linuxpower.org> References: <20000229142110.B23265@linuxpower.org> <20000229140452.A3460@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000229140452.A3460@thud.reric.net>; from Eric Seppanen on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:04:52PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:04:52PM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > How does ACME D.V. ensure that it's player can reproduce a CSS encoded > > > DVD released prior to its license application? Is ACME simply given the > > > right to use a hitherto unused key in the 400-key-block? If that's the > > > case, what happens when all 400 keys have been used up? > > > > Logically speaking, no one gets new licenses. To create completely new > > keys would mean reprinting every DVD currently in circulation. > > > Doesn't it seem more likely that some of the 400 keys aren't allocated > yet, and are held by DVD-CCA for future licensees? Yup. That's probably exactly what's going on. His question was regarding what happens when all 400 keys are allocated. Rob Warren greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 15:19:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11575 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:19:48 -0500 Received: from web501.mail.yahoo.com (web501.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA11567 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:19:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 2094 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 20:20:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229202040.2093.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web501.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:20:40 PST Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:20:40 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Summary of points: 1201(a)(2),(b); 1201(a)(1); etc. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ian Hay wrote: > There is an important [...] difference > between them: 'importing' is among the listed exclusive rights of a > copyright holder. As such, doing any 'importing' is "copyright > infringment", and fair use defenses apply to it as such; This WASN'T a 'fair use' defense. There is no 'fair use' to import. The point is that the copyright holder must retain the 'authority' required to prove the violation of the law. If anything the 'importing' case is STRONGER because it is listed as an exclusive right, not weaker. > [...] 'descrambling' > is a separate prohibition that, while it is contained in Title 17, is > NOT "copyright infringment", and thus 'fair use' defences -may or may > not- apply to it. The prohibition in 1201 might as well be buried in > insurance or estates legislation - it happens to be in 1201 because > that is the Title to which the prohibition relates. "descrambling" is not > copyright infringment, it is a violation of the prohibition set out > in 1201. I am not claiming descrambling is copyright infringement. I am not citing this case to prove 'fair use'. True, distributing circumvention tools is a de novo offense, but it clearly *DEPENDS* on the rights held by the copyright owner: to prove circumvention 1201(a)(3)(A) requires access 'without the authority of the copyright holder', just as 106(3) does for importation. > Further, your distinction between 'act of copying' and 'importing' is > completely irrelevant and totally ignores the structure of the > copyright statute: "copyright infringment" is defined and ONLY defined > as doing an act which is within the exclusive rights of the copyright > holder. EXACTLY!!! Just like 'infringment', 'circumvention' in 1201(a)(3)(A), requires the 'authority of the copyright holder' to be proven, which depends on the exclusive rights granted by Congress. Show me where this authority is statutorily granted, and show me where it says it survives first sale. You can infer it exists from the fact that it is refered to, but Quality King shows you cannot infer it survives first sale merely from the fact that it was refered to. The circuit court reasoned this way for exactly this reason, and they were unanimously overturned. > As I said in my previous post, Quality King is an interesting case > that bears further scrutiny, and may well be useful to us for the reasons > you've outlined. OK, I've already agreed that it didn't answer the question you originally asked. This should be a new thread. I agree. > But what I'm trying to communicate to you is that the > claims that "copyright is purely statutory" (which is true) and the > "exclusive rights of the copyright holder are limited" (also true) make > very little sense when used as arguments to demonstrate that a > STATUTE which EXTENDS the rights of the copyright holder is invalid > for that reason. Which section of the law extends these? I see it defining offenses that depend on the authority of the copyright holder, but I haven't seen the ones that extend the rights of the copyright holders past first sale. Please point these out. > Bryan: "1201 is invalid because it is inconsistent with the limitations > on exclusive rights of copyright holders." > Ian: "Why does that make it invalid?" > Bryan: "copyright is a creature of statute." > Ian: "1201 is a creature of statute." <> Bryan: 1201 creates de novo offenses made 'without authority' and in so doing refers to the pre-1201 exclusive rights. Nowhere did it amend these. Ian: Why do you say it was unchanged? clearly it was extended. Bryan: Where? The statute is silent regarding the access authority granting right. The only reference to it is the dependance on it to find circumvention. Even if you interpret this to imply existence, it doesn't get you past first sale, as shown in Quality King, where the right in question had the added benefit of being explicitly created (as you noted above) instead of merely infered. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 15:32:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA15566 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:32:50 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA15563 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:32:49 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA10436 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:33:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:33:45 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? In-Reply-To: <20000229113915.B31208@duskglow.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Russell Miller wrote: > On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:21:10PM -0500, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > > > Logically speaking, no one gets new licenses. To create completely new > > keys would mean reprinting every DVD currently in circulation. > > > Either that or just take the key away from a small company and redistribute > it. Or double up. > > It's just another inherent design weakness of the CSS. Or, more accurately, > a consequence of a design flaw. > > --Russell But the CSS spec provides for invalidating a key for improper disclosure/cracking of the key. If keys were doubled up, the invalidation of a compromised key would affect both a "careless" party, and an "innocent" party. Suppose ACME D.V. shared a key with Sony Electronics. Supposed ACME D.V. turned out to be a sham corporation distributing black boxes through Macao. If the ACME/Sony key was invalidated, Sony would suffer. Has the Xing key been changed? How many of the 400 keys have been cracked? Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 15:41:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA18761 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:41:43 -0500 Received: from web503.mail.yahoo.com (web503.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.70]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA18758 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:41:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 13408 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Feb 2000 20:42:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229204229.13407.qmail@web503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web503.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:42:29 PST Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:42:29 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > Has the Xing key been changed? How many of the 400 keys have been > cracked? Frank Stevenson has released code which can retrieve all 400 CSS keys from any given DVD (present or future) in about 20 seconds on a typical PC, so it is pointless for them to change the keys. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 17:42:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA22234 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:42:06 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22231 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:42:05 -0500 Received: from [38.32.11.206] (helo=ip206.bedford3.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12PvM2-0002CS-00; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:42:58 -0500 From: rongus@tiac.net (Ron Gustavson) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate Legislative History on 1201(f) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:41:56 GMT Message-ID: <38c5493c.20891978@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000229185107.16922.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000229185107.16922.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id RAA22232 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:51:07 -0800 (PST), Bryan Taylor wrote: >Here's a link to Sega Enterprises Ltd. v Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, >24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1561 (9th Cir. 1992.) > >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&f=2&invol=1510&vol=977&exact=1 > >Quick summary: Accolade decompiled and reverse engineered Sega products >to determine interface requirements so that it could create it's own >games that would play on Sega machines. Just speculating here... Might reverse engineering enjoy a better chance if the broader goal is not viewing DVDs, but creating an open-source DVD authoring tool? ie. DeCSS is just one step in an ongoing effort to enable anyone to communicate on this platform. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 18:26:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32359 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:26:59 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA32356 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:26:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 2040 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 23:23:31 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 23:23:31 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA06752; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:28:04 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:28:04 -0800 Message-Id: <200002292328.PAA06752@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:04:52PM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: >> Doesn't it seem more likely that some of the 400 keys aren't allocated >> yet, and are held by DVD-CCA for future licensees? > >Yup. That's probably exactly what's going on. His question was regarding >what happens when all 400 keys are allocated. Doesn't that constitute an indirect anti-trust violation? I mean out of 9 Billion ppl in the next 30 years only 400 corporations will actually produce content? Hello, Valenti... get off the drugs man. > >Rob Warren >greslin@linuxpower.org >www.iag.net/~aleris Rares ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 18:29:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00321 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:29:29 -0500 Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00317 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:29:28 -0500 Received: from 208-58-192-11.s11.tnt9.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.192.11]) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12Pw5F-000398-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:29:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38c5493c.20891978@mail.tiac.net> References: <20000229185107.16922.qmail@web501.mail.yahoo.com> <38c5493c.20891978@mail.tiac.net> Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:29:28 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Jeremy Erwin Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate Legislative History on 1201(f) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id SAA00319 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:51:07 -0800 (PST), Bryan Taylor wrote: > > >Here's a link to Sega Enterprises Ltd. v Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, > >24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1561 (9th Cir. 1992.) > > > >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&f=2&invol=1 >510&vol=977&exact=1 > > > >Quick summary: Accolade decompiled and reverse engineered Sega products > >to determine interface requirements so that it could create it's own > >games that would play on Sega machines. > >Just speculating here... >Might reverse engineering enjoy a better chance if the broader >goal is not viewing DVDs, but creating an open-source DVD >authoring tool? > >ie. DeCSS is just one step in an ongoing effort to enable anyone to >communicate on this platform. The case is a little more complicated than that. First, Sega had long been using trademark infringement to prosecute piracy in Taiwan. Their thinking can be described roughly as follows: If a pirated game is released, infringement cannot be proved unless the game displays a Sega trademark. Therefore, the Sega Genesis III contained code that checked for a special startup code. If the game did not contain this code, booting ceased. If this code was present, the game displayed a Sega trademark. Hence, all pirated games would either display the trademark, violating Sega's right against infringement, or they would refuse to boot. Accolade incorporated this code into their game, and Sega sued for both trademark infringement, and copyright infringement on the specific object code Accolade used to achieve compatibility. Accolade attempted to use a functionality claim in it's defense... I don't think the applicability of this case could be changed had CSS been used in a authoring (as opposed to viewing) tool. CSS is not required to create DVDs, AFAIK. It is required to view "protected" DVDs. Had Accolade cloned the Genesis, and prevailed against Sega, the resulting case might have been applicable... Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 18:43:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA03986 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:43:21 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03983 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:43:19 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id PAA23747 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:42:44 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:42:43 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Message-ID: <20000229154243.Y13379@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200002292328.PAA06752@ns1.filetron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200002292328.PAA06752@ns1.filetron.com>; from rmarian@linuxstart.com on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 03:28:04PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian writes: > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:04:52PM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > >> Doesn't it seem more likely that some of the 400 keys aren't allocated > >> yet, and are held by DVD-CCA for future licensees? > > > >Yup. That's probably exactly what's going on. His question was regarding > >what happens when all 400 keys are allocated. > > Doesn't that constitute an indirect anti-trust violation? I mean out of 9 Billion ppl in the next 30 years only 400 corporations will actually produce content? Those keys are allocated to producers of DVD players, not to producers of DVDs. So there may be at most 400 unique producers of licensed DVD players, but there could be an unlimited number of producers of DVDs. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 18:51:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06075 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:51:49 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06072 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:51:48 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA04721 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:52:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38BC5B8C.E559101B@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:51:40 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? References: <200002292328.PAA06752@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rares Marian wrote: > Doesn't that constitute an indirect anti-trust violation? I mean out of 9 Billion ppl in the next 30 years only 400 corporations will actually produce content? > > Hello, Valenti... get off the drugs man. > No, only 400 will make DVD players. Remember, this is a CSS KEY, not a license. You don't need a CSS key to produce content, only to produce a player that can play content scrambled with CSS. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 19:05:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA10744 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:05:30 -0500 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@242688hfc245.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA10741 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:05:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 2232 invoked by uid 502); 1 Mar 2000 00:10:42 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:10:42 -0500 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Message-ID: <20000229191042.E23265@linuxpower.org> References: <200002292328.PAA06752@ns1.filetron.com> <20000229154243.Y13379@cty-alum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000229154243.Y13379@cty-alum.org>; from Seth David Schoen on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 03:42:43PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 03:42:43PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Rares Marian writes: > > > greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > >On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:04:52PM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > >> Doesn't it seem more likely that some of the 400 keys aren't allocated > > >> yet, and are held by DVD-CCA for future licensees? > > > > > >Yup. That's probably exactly what's going on. His question was regarding > > >what happens when all 400 keys are allocated. > > > > Doesn't that constitute an indirect anti-trust violation? I mean out of 9 Billion ppl in the next 30 years only 400 corporations will actually produce content? > > Those keys are allocated to producers of DVD players, not to producers of > DVDs. > > So there may be at most 400 unique producers of licensed DVD players, but > there could be an unlimited number of producers of DVDs. But it does lead into an interesting question. Prior to all this mess, what was/is the procedure involved for licensing a DVD producer? Logic would indicate that if the 400 keys are printed on each CSS DVD, then there's most likely some sort of license involved in revealing those keys to content producers. Does anyone know (facts, not conjecture) if this sort of licensing is going on, and if so, what the details are? Is it happening on the content-printing level or on the authoring tools level? Dana? Rob Warren, always looking for an excuse to come back to technical issues greslin@linuxpower.org www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 19:15:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA13921 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:15:36 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (pie.cty-alum.ORG [204.94.189.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA13917 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:15:35 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id QAA23792 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:14:59 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:14:59 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Message-ID: <20000229161459.A13379@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200002292328.PAA06752@ns1.filetron.com> <20000229154243.Y13379@cty-alum.org> <20000229191042.E23265@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000229191042.E23265@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:10:42PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > But it does lead into an interesting question. > > Prior to all this mess, what was/is the procedure involved for licensing a DVD > producer? Logic would indicate that if the 400 keys are printed on each CSS > DVD, then there's most likely some sort of license involved in revealing those > keys to content producers. > > Does anyone know (facts, not conjecture) if this sort of licensing is going on, and > if so, what the details are? Is it happening on the content-printing level or on > the authoring tools level? I've seen a document from the DVD CCA or maybe the CSS ILO which said that there were different varieties of NDAs and contracts. One of the varieties was applicable to a DVD producer. Presumably that NDA included getting each of the 400 valid player keys. I bet John Young has that document in Cryptome, and I bet that's where I saw it. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 19:42:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA23600 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:42:45 -0500 Received: from penguin.filetron.com (qmailr@[206.171.92.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA23596 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:42:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 7341 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 00:39:18 -0000 Received: from ns1.filetron.com (httpd@206.171.92.1) by mail.filetron.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 00:39:18 -0000 Received: (from httpd@localhost) by ns1.filetron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14629; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:43:51 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:43:51 -0800 Message-Id: <200003010043.QAA14629@ns1.filetron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) From: Rares Marian To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth David Schoen wrote: >Rares Marian writes: > >> greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> >On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:04:52PM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: >> >> Doesn't it seem more likely that some of the 400 keys aren't allocated >> >> yet, and are held by DVD-CCA for future licensees? >> > >> >Yup. That's probably exactly what's going on. His question was regarding >> >what happens when all 400 keys are allocated. >> >> Doesn't that constitute an indirect anti-trust violation? I mean out of 9 Billion ppl in the next 30 years only 400 corporations will actually produce content? > >Those keys are allocated to producers of DVD players, not to producers of >DVDs. > >So there may be at most 400 unique producers of licensed DVD players, but >there could be an unlimited number of producers of DVDs. That still sucks. >Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I >Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will >down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 19:54:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA26544 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:54:37 -0500 Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA26541 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:54:36 -0500 Received: from 216-164-139-151.s405.tnt5.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([216.164.139.151] helo=[208.58.192.11]) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12PxQ7-00013C-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:55:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38BC5B8C.E559101B@cdpage.com> References: <200002292328.PAA06752@ns1.filetron.com> <38BC5B8C.E559101B@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:55:04 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Jeremy Erwin Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Rares Marian wrote: > > > Doesn't that constitute an indirect anti-trust violation? I mean >out of 9 Billion ppl in the next 30 years only 400 corporations will >actually produce content? > > > > Hello, Valenti... get off the drugs man. > > > >No, only 400 will make DVD players. Remember, this is a CSS KEY, not >a license. You don't need a CSS key to produce content, only to >produce a player that can play >content scrambled with CSS. > Still, 400 companies producing DVD players might be a little low, especially over a 30 year timeframe. How many different companies produce VCRs? Of course,the 30 year lifespan of DVD technology may be a little optimistic. In ten to fifteen years, DVD may lose out to a high definition technology-- one that just happens to incorporate more than toy encryption. Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 19:59:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA28554 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:59:02 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA28551 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:59:01 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA09995 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:00:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38BC6B4D.EBB47D39@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:58:53 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? References: <200002292328.PAA06752@ns1.filetron.com> <20000229154243.Y13379@cty-alum.org> <20000229191042.E23265@linuxpower.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Prior to all this mess, what was/is the procedure involved for licensing a DVD > producer? Logic would indicate that if the 400 keys are printed on each CSS > DVD, then there's most likely some sort of license involved in revealing those > keys to content producers. > > Does anyone know (facts, not conjecture) if this sort of licensing is going on, and > if so, what the details are? Is it happening on the content-printing level or on > the authoring tools level? > > Dana? > Yass. Prior to this mess, "interim" licensing went through Matushita and an agency of the Japanese goverment (MITI, I think). There are now three options, listed and explained here: http://www.dvdcca.org/dvdcca/css.html And before anyone asks, there's information about licensing DVD technology in general here: http://www.dvdforum.org/formata.htm -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 20:43:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA09711 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:43:13 -0500 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA09708 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:43:12 -0500 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl104.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.104]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA13202 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:44:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38BC75A9.F5C27BB7@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:43:05 -0700 From: Dana Parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How does CSS licensing work? References: <200002292328.PAA06752@ns1.filetron.com> <38BC5B8C.E559101B@cdpage.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jeremy Erwin wrote: > > > Of course,the 30 year lifespan of DVD technology may be > a little optimistic. In ten to fifteen years, DVD may lose out to a > high definition technology-- one that just happens to incorporate > more than toy encryption. > > More like five to ten years. You'll start seeing blue laser, HD DVD within the next two or three years. -- Dana J. Parker Consultant http://www.cdpage.com Contributing editor/standards columnist Emedia magazine http://www.emediapro.net DVD PRO Conference Chair http://www.dvdpro.net I support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression http://www.eff.org/cafe mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 29 23:31:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA29759 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:31:23 -0500 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29756 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:31:22 -0500 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA04887 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:30:46 -0800 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA09161; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:54:52 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: Update Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD is a program :) Date: 29 Feb 2000 19:53:47 -0800 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 5 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <89i48b$8u8$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article , Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > Since we have already established that DVD movies are programs, Have we? All DVD movies, or just some?