dvd-discuss.archive.0006100640 764 764 14146053 7127065053 15365 0ustar wseltzerwseltzerFrom dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 11:31:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA31645 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:31:48 -0400 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 LAA31642 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:31:47 -0400 Received: from newdell1 (roam216-21.law.harvard.edu [140.247.216.21]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA13987 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 11:37:23 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order 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 Thanks to John Young's Cryptome, we have the latest salvos in the protective order battle online. >MPAA's "Notice of Motion for Protective Order, Kenneth >Jacobsen Declaration and Memorandum of Law," May 30, 2000: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-mpo.htm > Plaintiffs have filed a formal motion for protective order, backed by a declaration of Kenneth Jacobsen, the former FBI special agent who heads the MPAA's worldwide anti-piracy program. They go heavy on guilt by association, reporting harrasing emails and a slashing in Malaysia, even while claiming they "do not suggest that defendants were responsible for this attack." Interesting reading. I'm putting in a declaration to help show the public interest in the case. --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society Openlaw/DVD: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 11:44:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA32027 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:44:02 -0400 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA32024 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:44:00 -0400 Message-ID: <20000601154450.25530.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 08:44:50 PDT Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:44:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Plaintiffs Declaration & Memo on Protective Order 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's more stuff on the protective order motion at http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-mpo.htm These include a Declaration of Kenneth A. Jacobsen, Worldwide Director of Anti-Piracy for the MPAA, more letters sent to hotline@mpaa.org, and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order. My reaction on reading these is that there is a disconnect between the cases needing protection and the scope of the sought protection. Jacobsen's statement includes: "4. It is critical that the Court prevent public dissemination of three categories of information: (a) home addresses of the deponents and others; (b) names of employees and representatives or [sic] the MPAA who are engaged in anti-piracy work and not normally in the public eye; and (c) sensitive business information, such as future plans for DVD encryption and security, anti-piracy investigative techniques and ongoing investigations, and other non-public information. " This list seems somewhat reasonable to me -- a blanket protective order that covers everything is way beyond what is needed to protect these. Basically, all that is needed is to "blue-dot" the people, and to keep a limited set of sensitive business information closed. The letters were interesting. A few of them are childish "you suck - you should die" crap, but quite a few of them are rather articulate, for example the one from Chris Barker. Evidently the hotline@mpaa.org address was obtained not from legal documents, but from the www.mpaa.org website. I have to wonder why the mpaa has a "hotline@mpaa.org" address published on their site if they don't want to read consumer comments. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 11:54:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA32270 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:54:10 -0400 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA32267 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:54:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20000601155457.3762.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 08:54:57 PDT Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:54:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order 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: > I'm putting in a declaration to help show the public interest in the > case. How exactly does putting in a declaration work? I'm kind of interested in doing one too. They seem to be pretty short. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 12:25:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA32725 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:25:52 -0400 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 MAA32722 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:25:49 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihji.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.70.114]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA16169 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006011627.MAA16169@smtp6.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 12:09:36 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order In-Reply-To: <20000601155457.3762.qmail@web514.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 This is what I've learned about submitting a statement directly to the court. Anyone can submit a statement in opposition to or support of the motion. A simple letter will do. It needs to be in the hands of the court by end of day Friday. Those who are submitting a declaration via the parties can also submit a separate statement. The court requires hardcopy, no fax. Send to: Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Room 1310 New York, New York 10007-1312 For questions on the procedure: 212-805-0104 Don't insult the court, don't mention my name. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 12:39:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00438 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:39:04 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA00435 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:39:02 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 12xY15-0006Uu-00; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:40:19 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 12xY17-0002eP-00; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:40:21 +0200 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:40:21 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order Message-ID: <20000601184021.A9617@inka.de> References: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu>; from wendy@seltzer.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:37:23AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:37:23AM -0400, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Plaintiffs have filed a formal motion for protective order, backed by a > declaration of Kenneth Jacobsen, the former FBI special agent who heads the > MPAA's worldwide anti-piracy program. They go heavy on guilt by > association, reporting harrasing emails As well as several emails that weren't harassing at all, but calmly voiced criticisms of the MPAA's tactics: M-4141 M-4067 in Exhibit A and the *whole* of Exhibit B. Exhibit B is the list of emails whose authors "have complained the did not have the names of people to target directly", implying a belief that some of the authors intend to take hostile action against associates of the MPAA. Yet the list of emails in this category *provided by the MPAA* doesn't contain a single threat! Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 12:41:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00527 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:41:53 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA00523 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:41:53 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA07139 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:43:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:43:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.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 06/01/00 at 11:37, 'twas brillig and Wendy Seltzer scrobe: > Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 11:37:23 -0400 > From: Wendy Seltzer > Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order > > Thanks to John Young's Cryptome, we have the latest salvos in the > protective order battle online. > > >MPAA's "Notice of Motion for Protective Order, Kenneth > >Jacobsen Declaration and Memorandum of Law," May 30, 2000: > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-mpo.htm > > > > Plaintiffs have filed a formal motion for protective order, backed by a > declaration of Kenneth Jacobsen, the former FBI special agent who heads the > MPAA's worldwide anti-piracy program. They go heavy on guilt by > association, reporting harrasing emails and a slashing in Malaysia, even > while claiming they "do not suggest that defendants were responsible for > this attack." [...] Regarding the "harassing emails"... Is there any burden of proof on the plaintiffs to show that they take these items seriously? That they're not just convenient (or manufactured!) things at which a lawyer can point during litigation and say: "Ooh, those bad hackers! Our employees are frightened for their lives! Judge, gag the presses!" All email is inserted into the internet *somewhere*. The sender presumably has control only over the original system whence it comes; each system that relays an email after the original point of insertion attaches "postmark" information to the headers, which makes it easy to track an email across the 'net. None of the emails attached in that exhibit appear to have this information; it has been elided somewhere. IANAL, but it seems to me that without this demonstration of provenance these things should not in any way be admissible. Hasn't all this been covered already, either in DOJ vs. MacroShaft or one of the other cases where emails are used as evidence? Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 12:42:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00575 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:42:33 -0400 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 MAA00570 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:42:31 -0400 Received: from [38.32.11.38] (helo=ip38.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 12xY4V-0001Bv-00; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:43:51 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Plaintiffs Declaration & Memo on Protective Order Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 12:38:06 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20000601154450.25530.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20000601154450.25530.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 MAA00573 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:44:50 -0700 (PDT), Bryan Taylor wrote: >The letters were interesting. A few of them are childish "you suck - >you should die" crap, but quite a few of them are rather articulate, >for example the one from Chris Barker. Evidently the hotline@mpaa.org >address was obtained not from legal documents, but from the >www.mpaa.org website. I have to wonder why the mpaa has a >"hotline@mpaa.org" address published on their site if they don't want >to read consumer comments. Not to mention that fact that any emails that don't include a real name and address should be totally disregarded by any court. It's way too easy for any party to forge anonymous threats to use as a justification for anything. I would also require a digital signature. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 12:58:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00746 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:58:27 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA00743 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:58:26 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA07627 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:59:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:59:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order 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 Sorry, hit "send" before finishing my thoughts... On 06/01/00 at 12:43, 'twas brillig and I hit "send" too soon: > Regarding the "harassing emails"... Is there any burden of > proof on the plaintiffs to show that they take these items seriously? > That they're not just convenient (or manufactured!) things at which a > lawyer can point during litigation and say: "Ooh, those bad hackers! > Our employees are frightened for their lives! Judge, gag the presses!" > > All email is inserted into the internet *somewhere*. The > sender presumably has control only over the original system whence it > comes; each system that relays an email after the original point of > insertion attaches "postmark" information to the headers, which makes > it easy to track an email across the 'net. > > None of the emails attached in that exhibit appear to have > this information; it has been elided somewhere. IANAL, but it seems to > me that without this demonstration of provenance these things should > not in any way be admissible. > > Hasn't all this been covered already, either in DOJ vs. > MacroShaft or one of the other cases where emails are used as > evidence? The point I to which I was trying to lead -- before I so rudely interrupted myself -- is: There are ways to tie the sender of an email to a particular IP, which can be correlated with ISP log information to come up with a reliable guess as to the identity of the sender. I've done this myself, and while I may be an experienced network admin, I'm certainly no LEO. I should think that someone with 25 years' experience as an FBI special agent would have no problems coming up with a methodology to investigate such, and -- if there exists real concern associated with the threats -- doing something about it. Or is a death threat sent with electrons somehow "less serious" than a death threat sent with paper? If the defense shows that the plaintiffs didn't take these emails seriously until they realized that they provided ammunition for the gag order, can they be discounted? Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 13:03:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA00944 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:03:55 -0400 Received: from dial236.roadrunner.com (sf-du236.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.236]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA00941 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:03:52 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial236.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00805 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:05:37 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:05:37 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Plaintiffs Declaration & Memo on Protective Order Message-ID: <20000601110536.A632@localhost> References: <20000601154450.25530.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000601154450.25530.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 08:44:50AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 08:44:50AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > There's more stuff on the protective order motion at > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-mpo.htm > > These include a Declaration of Kenneth A. Jacobsen, Worldwide Director > of Anti-Piracy for the MPAA, more letters sent to hotline@mpaa.org, and > a Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective > Order. > > My reaction on reading these is that there is a disconnect between the > cases needing protection and the scope of the sought protection. > > Jacobsen's statement includes: > > "4. It is critical that the Court prevent public dissemination of three > categories of information: (a) home addresses of the deponents and > others; (b) names of employees and representatives or [sic] the MPAA > who are engaged in anti-piracy work and not normally in the public eye; > and (c) sensitive business information, such as future plans for DVD > encryption and security, anti-piracy investigative techniques and > ongoing investigations, and other non-public information. " I don't see any reason for future plans for DVD to be included in the protective order, nor "other non-public information." Non-public is a trawl -- sweep up every thing we don't already know and hide it from view. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 13:11:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01112 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:11:37 -0400 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 NAA01109 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:11:36 -0400 Received: from [38.32.11.38] (helo=ip38.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 12xYWe-00078i-00; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:12:57 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:07:12 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu> <20000601184021.A9617@inka.de> In-Reply-To: <20000601184021.A9617@inka.de> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 NAA01110 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:40:21 +0200, Sham Gardner wrote: >Exhibit B is the list of emails whose authors "have complained the did not >have the names of people to target directly", implying a belief that some of >the authors intend to take hostile action against associates of the MPAA. >Yet the list of emails in this category *provided by the MPAA* doesn't >contain a single threat! Target is a new [Orwellian] word for address. They obviously are suffering schizophrenia WRT URLs: hyperlinks are both networked assets and also evasive targets. Should they be allowed to hyperlink 'hotline@mpaa.org' or place the mailto target in a CGI script if this aids in harrassment or verbal terrorism? Communicating with this organization is assumed by that organization to be an assault. Who are the terrorists here? Who wants to "take over" the world's communications infrastructure? Who wants to encrypt even the screen you read this email on? And why (beyond 'protecting' their freaking movies?) __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 14:47:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01731 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:47:25 -0400 Received: from dial72.roadrunner.com (sf-du72.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA01728 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:47:22 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial72.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01466 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:49:17 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:49:15 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order Message-ID: <20000601124914.A1441@localhost> References: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu> <20000601184021.A9617@inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from rongus@tiac.net on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:07:12PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:07:12PM -0400, Ron Gustavson wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:40:21 +0200, Sham Gardner wrote: > > >Exhibit B is the list of emails whose authors "have complained the did not > >have the names of people to target directly", implying a belief that some of > >the authors intend to take hostile action against associates of the MPAA. > >Yet the list of emails in this category *provided by the MPAA* doesn't > >contain a single threat! > > Target is a new [Orwellian] word for address. They obviously are suffering > schizophrenia WRT URLs: hyperlinks are both networked assets and also > evasive targets. Should they be allowed to hyperlink 'hotline@mpaa.org' or > place the mailto target in a CGI script if this aids in harrassment or verbal > terrorism? > > Communicating with this organization is assumed by that organization to be > an assault. Who are the terrorists here? Who wants to "take over" the world's > communications infrastructure? Who wants to encrypt even the screen you > read this email on? And why (beyond 'protecting' their freaking movies?) Take a look at: to get a feel for the context the authors of the exhibited messages were in when they wrote their missives. The authors are complaining because the only e-mail address is the "anti-piracy hotline." The frustration is clearly with the insular and non-communicative nature of the MPAA -- the only mail address they advertise is their tip-off line. The folks sending mail are frustrated that there is no comment or feed-back line. The MPAA try to turn this very legitimate grip into a statement that the author of the mail is looking for someone's head. They aren't. Their trying to talk to the MPAA, and there is no way to send them mail at an appropriate address. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 14:50:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01822 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:50:08 -0400 Received: from dial72.roadrunner.com (sf-du72.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA01819 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:50:06 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial72.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01476 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:52:02 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:52:01 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Plaintiffs Declaration & Memo on Protective Order Message-ID: <20000601125201.B1441@localhost> References: <20000601154450.25530.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> <20000601110536.A632@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000601110536.A632@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:05:37AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:05:37AM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 08:44:50AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: [ ... ] > > and (c) sensitive business information, such as future plans for DVD > > encryption and security, anti-piracy investigative techniques and > > ongoing investigations, and other non-public information. " > > I don't see any reason for future plans for DVD to be included in the > protective order, nor "other non-public information." Non-public is > a trawl -- sweep up every thing we don't already know and hide it from > view. Put more clearly: The MPAA are claiming in "c" that all "non-public information" is "sensitive business information." Ridiculous. "Sensitive" would cease to have any meaning if that definition applied. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 15:05:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02155 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:05:29 -0400 Received: from dial163.roadrunner.com (sf-du163.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.163]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02152 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:05:27 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial163.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01706 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:07:16 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:07:15 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] What is a hyperlink? Message-ID: <20000601130715.A1679@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I don't know if this has been _referenced_ yet: No reference to outside authority. Pure prose, no examples of html, no mention of http, etc. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 15:11:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02331 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:11:43 -0400 Received: from dial163.roadrunner.com (sf-du163.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.163]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02328 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:11:40 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial163.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01843 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:13:37 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:13:36 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order Message-ID: <20000601131336.B1679@localhost> References: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu> <20000601184021.A9617@inka.de> <20000601124914.A1441@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="azLHFNyN32YCQGCU" X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000601124914.A1441@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 12:49:15PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I just tried this page a minute ago. It is now gone. The full text is attatched. On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 12:49:15PM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > Take a look at: > > > > to get a feel for the context the authors of the exhibited messages > were in when they wrote their missives. > > The authors are complaining because the only e-mail address is the > "anti-piracy hotline." The frustration is clearly with the insular and > non-communicative nature of the MPAA -- the only mail address they > advertise is their tip-off line. The folks sending mail are frustrated > that there is no comment or feed-back line. > > The MPAA try to turn this very legitimate grip into a statement that the > author of the mail is looking for someone's head. They aren't. Their > trying to talk to the MPAA, and there is no way to send them mail at > an appropriate address. > > > Paul Fenimore --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: text/html Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="content.htm" MPA | Anti-piracy | Contact/Reward Program
Anyone with information on suspected video piracy operations is urged to call the MPAA at 1-800-NO-COPYS (1-800-662-6797). Callers who provide information that leads to the arrest and conviction of persons engaged in video piracy may be eligible for a reward. A separate reward will be paid to the first person who provides the location of a pirate video lab. The pirate lab must consist of 30 or more VCRs at one location used to produce unauthorized copies of MPAA member company motion pictures.

 Information may also be furnished via E-Mail if directed to the email Hotline at the MPAA in Encino, California. Informants may remain anonymous if requested.
--azLHFNyN32YCQGCU-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 15:18:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02466 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:18:50 -0400 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 PAA02463 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:18:46 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl111.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.111]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA02679 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3936B69D.B24FBBC@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:16:45 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order References: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu> <20000601184021.A9617@inka.de> <20000601124914.A1441@localhost> <20000601131336.B1679@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 just tried this page a minute ago. It is now gone. It's still there for me. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 15:30:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02573 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:30:55 -0400 Received: from dial210.roadrunner.com (dial210.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.210] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02570 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:30:52 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial210.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02181 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:32:41 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:32:40 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA website, email addresses Message-ID: <20000601133239.C1679@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I just grep'ed the MPAA web-site, not counting files with gif, jpg or jpeg file-name extensions. That's 54 files. I found two occurrences of "mailto" on the website. One is the hotline, the other is in a file listing related sites: I did not locate a general feedback or comment address. Here are all the url's I checked: http://www.mpaa.org/index.html http://www.mpaa.org/home.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/default.HTM http://www.mpaa.org/Press/top.asp http://www.mpaa.org/Press/content.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/DVD_FAQ.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/DVD_Release_4_5.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Hyperlink_FAQ.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Reimerdes_Memorandum_Opinion.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/mpaawin2.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Corley_Kazan_Hearing.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/final_response_1-14.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Connecticut_Claim.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/New_York_Claim.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/iCrave_Permanent_Injunction.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/iCrave_Agreement.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/iCrave_Settlement.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/iCrave_Findings.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/iCraveTV_Ruling.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/pressrelease1-20-00.htm http://www.mpaa.org/Press/icrave_complaint.htm http://www.mpaa.org/about/index.htm http://www.mpaa.org/about/top.asp http://www.mpaa.org/about/content.htm http://www.mpaa.org/about/index.html http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/index.htm http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/top.asp http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/content2.htm http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/index.html http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/index.htm http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/top.asp http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/content.htm http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/index.html http://www.mpaa.org/jack/index.htm http://www.mpaa.org/jack/top.asp http://www.mpaa.org/jack/content.htm http://www.mpaa.org/jack/index.html http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/index.htm http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/top.asp http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/content.htm http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/index.html http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/contact/index.htm http://www.mpaa.org/relatedsites/index.htm http://www.mpaa.org/relatedsites/top.asp http://www.mpaa.org/relatedsites/content.htm http://www.mpaa.org/relatedsites/index.html http://www.mpaa.org/legislation/index.htm http://www.mpaa.org/legislation/top.asp http://www.mpaa.org/legislation/press/content.htm http://www.mpaa.org/legislation/index.html http://www.mpaa.org/tv/index.htm http://www.mpaa.org/tv/top.asp http://www.mpaa.org/tv/content.htm http://www.mpaa.org/tv/index.html http://www.mpaa.org/Privacy_Policy.htm Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 15:33:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02673 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:33:12 -0400 Received: from dial210.roadrunner.com (dial210.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.210] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02670 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:33:10 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial210.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02222 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:35:06 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:35:06 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order Message-ID: <20000601133505.A2211@localhost> References: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu> <20000601184021.A9617@inka.de> <20000601124914.A1441@localhost> <20000601131336.B1679@localhost> <3936B69D.B24FBBC@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3936B69D.B24FBBC@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:16:45PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:16:45PM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > I just tried this page a minute ago. It is now gone. > > It's still there for me. Must have been a transient failure -- I've got access again. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 15:33:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02694 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:33:27 -0400 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 PAA02689 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:33:21 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11887 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:38:37 -0700 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA website, email addresses Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:38:00 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <20000601133239.C1679@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20000601133239.C1679@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0006011238332C.10919@www.rjmconsulting.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu And in a strange coincidence, those appear as clickable hyperlinks in my mailreader (kmail) --Russell On Thu, 01 Jun 2000, you wrote: > I just grep'ed the MPAA web-site, not counting files with gif, jpg or > jpeg file-name extensions. That's 54 files. > > I found two occurrences of "mailto" on the website. One is the hotline, > the other is in a file listing related sites: > > > > I did not locate a general feedback or comment address. > > Here are all the url's I checked: > > http://www.mpaa.org/index.html > http://www.mpaa.org/home.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/default.HTM > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/top.asp > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/content.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/DVD_FAQ.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/DVD_Release_4_5.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Hyperlink_FAQ.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Reimerdes_Memorandum_Opinion.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/mpaawin2.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Corley_Kazan_Hearing.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/final_response_1-14.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Connecticut_Claim.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/New_York_Claim.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/iCrave_Permanent_Injunction.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/iCrave_Agreement.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/iCrave_Settlement.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/iCrave_Findings.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/iCraveTV_Ruling.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/pressrelease1-20-00.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/Press/icrave_complaint.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/about/index.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/about/top.asp > http://www.mpaa.org/about/content.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/about/index.html > http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/index.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/top.asp > http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/content2.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/index.html > http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/index.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/top.asp > http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/content.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/index.html > http://www.mpaa.org/jack/index.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/jack/top.asp > http://www.mpaa.org/jack/content.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/jack/index.html > http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/index.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/top.asp > http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/content.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/index.html > http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/contact/index.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/relatedsites/index.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/relatedsites/top.asp > http://www.mpaa.org/relatedsites/content.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/relatedsites/index.html > http://www.mpaa.org/legislation/index.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/legislation/top.asp > http://www.mpaa.org/legislation/press/content.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/legislation/index.html > http://www.mpaa.org/tv/index.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/tv/top.asp > http://www.mpaa.org/tv/content.htm > http://www.mpaa.org/tv/index.html > http://www.mpaa.org/Privacy_Policy.htm > > > Paul Fenimore -- 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 Jun 1 15:35:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02825 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:35:25 -0400 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 PAA02822 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:35:24 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihji.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.70.114]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA19871 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006011936.PAA19871@smtp6.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 15:19:55 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Statements on MPAA's Motion for Protective Order In-Reply-To: <20000601124914.A1441@localhost> References: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu> <20000601184021.A9617@inka.de> 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 has submitted a statement to Judge Kaplans in opposition to MPAA's motion for a protective order to bar revelation of deposition materials. http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-cs.htm Anyone can submit a statement in opposition to or in support of the MPAA motion for protective order to bar the press and non-parties from revealing deposition materials. It must be submitted in hardcopy (no fax, no e-mail) to Judge Kaplan by end of day June 2, 2000 at the address given in the letter above. Cryptome will accept e-mailed statements in opposition or in support to the motion, print them out and submit them to Judge Kaplan on behalf of authors who cannot themselves submit hardcopy. Send to: jy@jya.com, with the subject: Protect Free Speech. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 15:39:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02896 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:39:22 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02893 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:39:21 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:43:30 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D72@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:43:29 -0400 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 The messages contain nothing above or beyond what would be expected in a case of this magnitude. I wonder if OJ's lawyers received similar email? I bet the answer is yes... Can someone fill us in on the legal process here? Is there a credibility test that has to be applied to the email? One thing I think is worth arguing is that the court has already found the plaintiffs making motions for tactical reasons (disqualification motion), and this motion is clearly a tactical measure designed to stifle debate and thus limit the effectiveness of the defense to produce adequate witnesses. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 15:41:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02946 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:41:36 -0400 Received: from dial210.roadrunner.com (dial210.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.210] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02943 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:41:33 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial210.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02339 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:43:30 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:43:29 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA website, email addresses Message-ID: <20000601134329.A2320@localhost> References: <20000601133239.C1679@localhost> <0006011238332C.10919@www.rjmconsulting.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <0006011238332C.10919@www.rjmconsulting.com>; from rmiller@duskglow.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 12:38:00PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 12:38:00PM -0700, Russell Miller wrote: > And in a strange coincidence, those appear as clickable hyperlinks in my > mailreader (kmail) > > --Russell > > On Thu, 01 Jun 2000, you wrote: > > I just grep'ed the MPAA web-site, not counting files with gif, jpg or > > jpeg file-name extensions. That's 54 files. 55, not 54. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 15:46:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03025 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:46:07 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03022 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:46:05 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 12xawA-0002C5-00; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:47:26 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 12xawC-0003dj-00; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:47:28 +0200 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:47:28 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order Message-ID: <20000601214728.A12911@inka.de> References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D72@c100.clearway.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D72@c100.clearway.com>; from Ray@clearway.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 03:43:29PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 03:43:29PM -0400, Leland Ray wrote: > > The messages contain nothing above or beyond what would be expected > in a case of this magnitude. I wonder if OJ's lawyers received similar > email? I bet the answer is yes... Also considering that since they found it necessary to include several obviously non-threatening emails, I would speculate that those threatening emails that are in the document are *all* they have received. If so it would be remarkably few considering the number of people worldwide opposed to their actions. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 16:03:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03233 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:03:55 -0400 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 QAA03230 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:03:54 -0400 Received: from [38.32.78.17] (helo=ip17.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 12xbDP-0003Po-00; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:05:15 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 15:59:30 -0400 Message-ID: <1afdjski7oopmhqv2lbjds6r08lemjkkn4@4ax.com> References: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu> <20000601184021.A9617@inka.de> <20000601124914.A1441@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20000601124914.A1441@localhost> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 QAA03231 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:49:15 -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: >The authors are complaining because the only e-mail address is the >"anti-piracy hotline." The frustration is clearly with the insular and >non-communicative nature of the MPAA -- the only mail address they >advertise is their tip-off line. The folks sending mail are frustrated >that there is no comment or feed-back line. This echoes the frustration of those who might seek fair use of their DVD. An exhibit in frustration: http://www.tiac.net/users/rongus/dvdcap.jpg This is a screen shot of my DVD (of the possibly public domain "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari") which illustrates expressionist sets evocative of paintings by Kirchner, Marc, and Heckel--an image that might be used in an art class. This is the image of education under CSS and Macrovision--a Stalinist view to be sure. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 16:34:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03516 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:34:50 -0400 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 QAA03513 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:34:49 -0400 Received: from [38.32.78.17] (helo=ip17.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 12xbhH-00049X-00; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:36:07 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA website, email addresses Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 16:30:23 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20000601133239.C1679@localhost> <0006011238332C.10919@www.rjmconsulting.com> <20000601134329.A2320@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20000601134329.A2320@localhost> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 QAA03514 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >> > I just grep'ed the MPAA web-site, not counting files with gif, jpg or >> > jpeg file-name extensions. That's 54 files. > >55, not 54. Just for fun-- http://udl.cast.org/bobby?browser=AccEval&URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpaa.org%2F&output=Submit __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 16:38:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04136 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:38:52 -0400 Received: from dial228.roadrunner.com (sf-du228.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04133 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:38:49 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial228.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02928 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:40:46 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:40:45 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000601144045.A2829@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This has seen some significant work by the MPAA since I last looked. 1. "I hear that DVD pirates dont even need DeCSS to make illegal copies. Pirates can easily obtain hardware that can copy DVDs. So why are you taking action? "The fact that there may be multiple ways to violate the law does not make DeCSS any less illegal. The MPAA attacks numerous forms of piracy in different ways worldwide. MPAA is actively pursuing enforcement actions against all illegal means to copy and distribute DVDs." Short answer: CSS is access control, not copy control. CSS correlates perfectly with access control, and to the extent that it has an incidental role as copy control, it functions best to hinder legal copying, and functions not-at-all in the instance that is most illegal (industrial piracy.) 2. They mention fair use, and mention (not explicitly) the 47 USC 665 paracopyright language as precedent. They state that fair use doesn't give a right to access. This should be taken head-on. The question is not whether fair use grants a right to access. This has causality wrong, access comes before use: it is a prerequisite. The thing which comes second can, by definition, never give a right to the thing which comes first (in this case access.) The real question is if the thing which comes first can be used to abolish or delegate to a private party the thing that comes second. etc. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 17:09:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04369 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:09:00 -0400 Received: from dial189.roadrunner.com (sf-du189.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.189]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04366 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:08:54 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial189.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03099 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:10:49 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:10:48 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Data on modem speeds, fiber bandwidth, etc.? Message-ID: <20000601151047.A3005@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I do not know of any careful public analysis of how many years it will be until "home users" can shove a 10GB video through their connection in a reasonable amount of time. Before I start looking for data on modem speeds, unit cost of fiber optic cable, etc. I though I'd ask if anyone knows of analyses along these lines, or of sources of data for such an analysis. Comments, wisdom, etc.? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 17:33:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04602 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:33:50 -0400 Received: from relay02.chello.nl (relay02.chello.nl [212.83.68.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04599 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:33:49 -0400 Received: from tser ([24.132.114.144]) by relay02.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.00 201-232-116 license 2ee4e7c625482f2f2a1950a80f6c8d58) with SMTP id <20000601213459.OMBN13476.relay02@tser> for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:34:59 +0200 Message-ID: <00ec01bfcc10$f162f2c0$97a1a8c0@iter.net> From: "tser" To: References: <20000601151047.A3005@localhost> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Data on modem speeds, fiber bandwidth, etc.? Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:32:52 +0200 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 5.00.2615.200 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 There is no need to pump up 10gb through a connection if 700MB Will Do. A DVD Movie compressed with for example Divx, will fith in one piece of 700mb, high quality. It takes me about 3 hours to get that movie. Which means, if i start the transfer, in the morning, i can watch the movie at night. my personal Cable Speed is up to 200KB/S. All Our internal (news)servers, are reachable with that speed. I think, that is a realy cool acceptable form of video-on demand ;-) *waves * -- tser .. now back to mission imposible 2... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 17:43:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04715 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:43:06 -0400 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 RAA04712 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:43:05 -0400 Received: from [38.32.11.127] (helo=ip127.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 12xclK-0005GI-00; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:44:22 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 17:38:38 -0400 Message-ID: <39kdjs0u5701254qokiu4b41lcepggr38q@4ax.com> References: <20000601144045.A2829@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20000601144045.A2829@localhost> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 RAA04713 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:40:45 -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > >This has seen some significant work by the MPAA since I last looked. > and #15. If I can make an audiocassette copy of a CD, or a VHS copy of a #television broadcast, why shouldn’t I be able to make a copy of a DVD that I own? # # Copyright law and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1984 "Betamax" decision provide #for "fair use" of copyrighted material. For example, scholars and critics can quote #lines from a book in a review without fear of incurring copyright liability. Or, a soap #opera fan can tape an over the air TV show during the day to watch later that night #— under the Betamax decision, an unscrambled broadcast can be copied for this #type of "time shift" personal use. They don't mention that many scrambled broadcasts and PPV movies can also be legally taped from the set-top box--a feature that could soon disappear. #BUT "fair use" is not an open-ended concept. It does not justify any action an #individual may take with a copyrighted work, whether they have purchased the #copy or not. It is a right to use what is available, not a right of access to works for #fair use purposes. Huh? Try that last statement again... So the public is just unlucky that fickle gods of technology have denied them legal use that they previously enjoyed--and will likely deny them more utility in the future. #For example, the law has always recognized that a show sent #by scrambled pay-per-view signal may not be viewed or copied through the use #of an unauthorized, illegal descrambler. The owner of the signal has – and has #always had -- a legal right to scramble the signal to prevent unauthorized access #to the signal for viewing or to make copies of the show. Yes, but what about taping from an authorized legal descrambler? And please explain Macrovision--a greater offense to fair use than CSS. #Most importantly, this concept of fair use does not override specific statutory #enactment such as the DMCA, which are intended by Congress to give clear #protection to the rights of the creative community to use technological means to #protect its product. It is this protection which has enabled the motion picture #industry to launch new products in digital format, such as DVDs. Not quite. It is fast processors, better compression algorithms, cheap memory and storage, and a robust market for newer and faster personal computers which have enabled this. Protection schemes have only delayed and made the new products more costly to produce. These schemes almost killed DVD on numerous occasions. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 17:52:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04791 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:52:44 -0400 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA04788 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:52:40 -0400 Message-ID: <20000601215331.15274.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:53:31 PDT Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:53:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Protect Free Speech - my motion opposition letter To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, jy@jya.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'd like to take John Young up on his offer to hand deliver letters to the court. I have written a two page letter to Judge Kaplan expressing my opposition to the motion for a protective order. It's available at: http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/Letter.pdf This email and the fact that the document is posted under my website should suffice authenticate it given the tight timeline. Thanks, John for taking the time to do this! Bryan Taylor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 18:00:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA04937 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:00:03 -0400 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA04934 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:00:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20000601220052.28155.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 15:00:52 PDT Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:00:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Linux Today covers Openlaw Amicus 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 I sent Wendy's announcement of our amicus brief to Linux Today. They have run the story. It'll be fun to watch how many hits the story gets. The link is: http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-06-01-018-04-NW-BZ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 18:38:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05365 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:38:53 -0400 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 SAA05362 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:38:51 -0400 Received: from travel-net.com (trj41.travel-net.com [207.176.160.41]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21006 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:40:48 -0400 Message-ID: <3936E646.2E3690A@travel-net.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:40:06 -0400 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Data on modem speeds, fiber bandwidth, etc.? References: <20000601151047.A3005@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 think this whole argument is one we should studiously ignore. The industry has been littered with *fearless* predictions as to size, speed, etc. all along. Remember Bill Gates famous 640k prediction? Remember the *proof* that modems would never go beyond 33k? Remember when a 5MB drive cost $10k? etc. etc. If we bring up evidence about it probably taking X years b4 it becomes feasible, you can bet plaintiffs will bring up the "things happen faster than expected" argument. Besides, by going down that path we are tacitly agreeing that the conduct is illegal. We don't want to do it. We want to reinforce that fact and that it doesnt matter if such a thing is possible today, tomorrow or even next week. Its permissible use that just happens to be infeasible at the time. Or am I way off-base on this? Paul Fenimore wrote: > > I do not know of any careful public analysis of how many years it will > be until "home users" can shove a 10GB video through their connection in > a reasonable amount of time. > > Before I start looking for data on modem speeds, unit cost of fiber > optic cable, etc. I though I'd ask if anyone knows of analyses along > these lines, or of sources of data for such an analysis. > > Comments, wisdom, etc.? > > Paul Fenimore -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 19:10:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA05790 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:10:11 -0400 Received: from relay02.chello.nl (relay02.chello.nl [212.83.68.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA05787 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:10:10 -0400 Received: from tser ([24.132.114.144]) by relay02.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.00 201-232-116 license 2ee4e7c625482f2f2a1950a80f6c8d58) with SMTP id <20000601231050.PBMV13476.relay02@tser> for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 01:10:50 +0200 Message-ID: <011601bfcc1e$4b829f00$97a1a8c0@iter.net> From: "tser" To: References: <20000601151047.A3005@localhost> <3936E646.2E3690A@travel-net.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Data on modem speeds, fiber bandwidth, etc.? Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 01:08:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > I think this whole argument is one we should studiously ignore. The > industry has been littered with *fearless* predictions as to size, > speed, etc. all along. It is already possible. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 19:39:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06060 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:39:47 -0400 Received: from suba01.suba.com (suba01.suba.com [198.87.202.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06057 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:39:45 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-42.suba.com [206.69.121.234]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA19208 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:41:04 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA's Motion for Protective Order Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:40:28 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bfcc22$c480e840$ea7945ce@bugbug> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000601133505.A2211@localhost> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu paul wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:16:45PM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > > I just tried this page a minute ago. It is now gone. > > > > It's still there for me. > > Must have been a transient failure -- I've got access again. I tried to get there on WinBS with Internet Exploder - and it made my system hang. You don't think it's a plot? ;) sparky > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 19:48:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06169 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:48:04 -0400 Received: from suba01.suba.com (suba01.suba.com [198.87.202.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06166 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:48:03 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-06.suba.com [206.69.121.198]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA19452 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:49:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:48:44 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bfcc23$ebbcbdc0$ea7945ce@bugbug> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <39kdjs0u5701254qokiu4b41lcepggr38q@4ax.com> 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 wrote: > > #BUT "fair use" is not an open-ended concept. It does not justify > any action an > #individual may take with a copyrighted work, whether they have > purchased the > #copy or not. It is a right to use what is available, not a right > of access to works for > #fair use purposes. > > Huh? Try that last statement again... So the public is just > unlucky that fickle gods > of technology have denied them legal use that they previously enjoyed--and > will likely deny them more utility in the future. The proof's in the pudding, the person who wrote their FAQ is a clinically-certifiable Cynical Bastard. > > #For example, the law has always recognized that a show sent > #by scrambled pay-per-view signal may not be viewed or copied > through the use > #of an unauthorized, illegal descrambler. The owner of the signal > has – and has > #always had -- a legal right to scramble the signal to prevent > unauthorized access > #to the signal for viewing or to make copies of the show. > > Yes, but what about taping from an authorized legal descrambler? > And please explain Macrovision--a greater offense to fair use than CSS. Not to mention the fact that this has no bearing on the situation of DVDs, since they are not transmitted but purchased. > > #Most importantly, this concept of fair use does not override > specific statutory > #enactment such as the DMCA, which are intended by Congress to give clear > #protection to the rights of the creative community to use > technological means to > #protect its product. It is this protection which has enabled the > motion picture > #industry to launch new products in digital format, such as DVDs. > > Not quite. It is fast processors, better compression algorithms, > cheap memory > and storage, and a robust market for newer and faster personal > computers which > have enabled this. Protection schemes have only delayed and made the new > products more costly to produce. These schemes almost killed DVD > on numerous > occasions. My god.. can we just write a response to their freaking FAQ? Can we! The question is, where can we post it on the net for all to see? John, can you do it, or think of someone who would? I relish a PR offensive. We've had nothing on that front. Does anyone feel likewise? sp > > > __________no-∞-do__________ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 20:34:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA06516 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:34:18 -0400 Received: from dial122.roadrunner.com (sf-du122.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.122]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA06513 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:34:15 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial122.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA04928 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:36:16 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:36:14 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Data on modem speeds, fiber bandwidth, etc.? Message-ID: <20000601183614.A4798@localhost> References: <20000601151047.A3005@localhost> <3936E646.2E3690A@travel-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3936E646.2E3690A@travel-net.com>; from dstein@travel-net.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:40:06PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:40:06PM -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote: > I think this whole argument is one we should studiously ignore. The > industry has been littered with *fearless* predictions as to size, > speed, etc. all along. > Remember Bill Gates famous 640k prediction? Remember the *proof* that > modems would never go beyond 33k? Remember when a 5MB drive cost > $10k? etc. etc. If we bring up evidence about it probably taking X > years b4 it becomes feasible, you can bet plaintiffs will bring up the > "things happen faster than expected" argument. Besides, by going down > that path we are tacitly agreeing that the conduct is illegal. We > don't want to do it. We want to reinforce that fact and that it > doesnt matter if such a thing is possible today, tomorrow or even next > week. Its permissible use that just happens to be infeasible at the > time. > > Or am I way off-base on this? You're on target. I was mostly trying to clear out cob webs and old work that I'd though of in the past, but not yet done. On second thought, those old ideas are not particularly useful. This is a lawsuit about access, not copying. I think one of the main points we can bang home is that CSS's supposed copy protection is incidental to its primary function of access control. One cannot turn around and pretend that the primary function doesn't exist, especially when the incidental function of copy control doesn't meet the "... in the ordinary course of its operation ..." requirement from 1201(b)(2)(B). Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 20:36:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA06624 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:36:29 -0400 Received: from dial122.roadrunner.com (sf-du122.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.122]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA06621 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:36:27 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial122.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA04950 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:38:28 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:38:27 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000601183827.A4941@localhost> References: <39kdjs0u5701254qokiu4b41lcepggr38q@4ax.com> <000101bfcc23$ebbcbdc0$ea7945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <000101bfcc23$ebbcbdc0$ea7945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:48:44PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:48:44PM -0500, sparky wrote: [ ... ] > My god.. can we just write a response to their freaking FAQ? Can we! The > question is, where can we post it on the net for all to see? John, can you > do it, or think of someone who would? > > I relish a PR offensive. We've had nothing on that front. Does anyone feel > likewise? An easy way to start is to use the annotator on eon.law.harvard.edu to mark-up their faq. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 21:28:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07408 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:28:18 -0400 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 VAA07405 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:28:17 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inig5p.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.64.185]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA23792 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006020129.VAA23792@smtp6.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 21:12:12 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Godwin and McCullagh Oppose Protective Order In-Reply-To: <20000601220052.28155.qmail@web514.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 Mike Godwin of American Lawyer and Declan McCullagh of Wired have provided motions they filed today to intervene and oppose MPAA's motion for a protective order: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-gmo.htm From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 23:43:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA08154 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:43:34 -0400 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 XAA08151 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:43:33 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-09.suba.com [206.69.121.201]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA26401 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:44:53 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:44:17 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bfcc44$d3eb0320$c97945ce@bugbug> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <20000601183827.A4941@localhost> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu paul wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:48:44PM -0500, sparky wrote: > [ ... ] > > My god.. can we just write a response to their freaking FAQ? Can we! The > > question is, where can we post it on the net for all to see? > John, can you > > do it, or think of someone who would? > > > > I relish a PR offensive. We've had nothing on that front. Does > anyone feel > > likewise? > > An easy way to start is to use the annotator on eon.law.harvard.edu to > mark-up their faq. Where is this? Maybe I'm not even sure what it is. I went to eon, but it just sends me to cyber.law. sp > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 23:52:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA08279 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:52:13 -0400 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA08276 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:52:12 -0400 Received: from [38.32.11.44] (helo=ip44.bedford3.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12xiWb-0002Sz-00; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:53:34 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 23:47:45 -0400 Message-ID: <9hbejso86p65okk0dm6tncfmg2u8282ejm@4ax.com> References: <20000601183827.A4941@localhost> <000001bfcc44$d3eb0320$c97945ce@bugbug> In-Reply-To: <000001bfcc44$d3eb0320$c97945ce@bugbug> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id XAA08277 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >> An easy way to start is to use the annotator on eon.law.harvard.edu to >> mark-up their faq. > >Where is this? Maybe I'm not even sure what it is. I went to eon, but it >just sends me to cyber.law. > Click here: http://eon.law.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/annotate/main.cgi?view=http://www.mpaa.org/Press/DVD_FAQ.htm :-) __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 23:53:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA08374 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:53:49 -0400 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA08371 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:53:48 -0400 Received: from wmsnote (roam203-37.student.harvard.edu [140.247.203.37]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA24857 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:55:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20000601235942.01c157f0@140.247.200.68> X-Sender: wseltzer@199.45.39.23 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 00:01:49 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <000001bfcc44$d3eb0320$c97945ce@bugbug> References: <20000601183827.A4941@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 10:44 PM 6/1/00 -0500, sparky wrote: > >paul wrote: >> An easy way to start is to use the annotator on eon.law.harvard.edu to >> mark-up their faq. > >Where is this? Maybe I'm not even sure what it is. I went to eon, but it >just sends me to cyber.law. > It's linked off the bottom of the DVD/resources page or directly at this unwieldy URL: --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 1 23:59:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA08425 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:59:01 -0400 Received: from dial187.roadrunner.com (dial187.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.187] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA08422 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:58:59 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial187.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA05760 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:59:55 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:59:53 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: annotator Message-ID: <20000601215953.A5568@localhost> References: <20000601183827.A4941@localhost> <000001bfcc44$d3eb0320$c97945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <000001bfcc44$d3eb0320$c97945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 10:44:17PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 10:44:17PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > paul wrote: [ ... ] > > An easy way to start is to use the annotator on eon.law.harvard.edu to > > mark-up their faq. > > Where is this? Maybe I'm not even sure what it is. I went to eon, but it > just sends me to cyber.law. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 01:59:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA09206 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 01:59:48 -0400 Received: from dial201.roadrunner.com (dial201.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.201] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA09203 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 01:59:42 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial201.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA06392 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:01:32 -0600 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:01:31 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Dean Marks' comments on 1201 rule-making Message-ID: <20000602000130.A6304@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu says on page three, "Content owners therefore cannot apply technical measures to their works that will cause all receiving and playback devices to be unable to receive or play the works. If we were to do so, then we would be put out of business." The point is that the MPAA et al.'s reading of 1201(a) makes access availible only at the pleasure of the copyright holder. They are, as Mr. Marks suggests, unlikely to use this to deny all access. Rather it will be used to extract money at every turn, and regulate that which is not theirs to control. The focus has been on access limiting, regulating, or abolishing fair use, but access comes before all use, not just fair use. There is a fourth category, in addition to infringing, authorized and fair uses -- non-copyright use. Those uses not reserved by 106 (i.e. private viewing after first sale), are non-copyright uses. Presumably those uses are outside the scope of copyright because their inclusion would either violate "promote progress" or the First Amendment. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 02:11:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA09432 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 02:11:58 -0400 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 CAA09428 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 02:11:45 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12xkfb-00012C-00 for ; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 01:10:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 01:10:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <9hbejso86p65okk0dm6tncfmg2u8282ejm@4ax.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 Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Ron Gustavson wrote: > >> An easy way to start is to use the annotator on eon.law.harvard.edu to > >> mark-up their faq. > > > >Where is this? Maybe I'm not even sure what it is. I went to eon, but it > >just sends me to cyber.law. > > > > Click here: > http://eon.law.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/annotate/main.cgi?view=http://www.mpaa.org/Press/DVD_FAQ.htm Hmmm... Better haul every CSS software licensee to prison. "There are no legal software packages available for decrypting DVDs"... - the MPAA DVD FAQ. The annotator is neat - but I think a web page with specific responses to each FAQ question would be easier to read. What does everyone think about reproducing their Q&A session in the OpenDVD CSS FAQ? I think a line for line rebuttal of the MPAA (mis)information would be nice - especially after all of the negative PR they generated. Maybe a sub-section on "What is the MPAA" entitled "What the MPAA believes". Or should something like this go in another document? (for the sake of impartiality?) Anyone else interested? I can do some of it. I just think it needs to be done... It's about time we start doing a bit more PR ourselves... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:30:35 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial176.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA07040 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 01:32:41 -0600 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 01:32:40 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000602013240.A7019@localhost> References: <9hbejso86p65okk0dm6tncfmg2u8282ejm@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:10:59AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:10:59AM -0500, Tim Neu wrote: [ ... ] > What does everyone think about reproducing their Q&A session in the > OpenDVD CSS FAQ? I think a line for line rebuttal of the MPAA > (mis)information would be nice - especially after all of the negative PR > they generated. > > Maybe a sub-section on "What is the MPAA" entitled "What the MPAA > believes". > > Or should something like this go in another document? (for the sake of > impartiality?) A specific, detailed rebuttal of the MPAA FAQ definitely belongs in its own document. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 07:08:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA12560 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:08:56 -0400 Received: from duckman.distro.conectiva (brutus.conectiva.com.br [200.250.58.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA12555 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:08:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (riel@localhost) by duckman.distro.conectiva (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA14857; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:10:02 -0300 X-Authentication-Warning: duckman.distro.conectiva: riel owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:10:02 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <000101bfcc23$ebbcbdc0$ea7945ce@bugbug> Message-ID: 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 On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > Ron wrote: > > #For example, the law has always recognized that a show sent > > #by scrambled pay-per-view signal may not be viewed or copied > > through the use > > #of an unauthorized, illegal descrambler. The owner of the signal > > has – and has > > #always had -- a legal right to scramble the signal to prevent > > unauthorized access > > #to the signal for viewing or to make copies of the show. > > > > Yes, but what about taping from an authorized legal descrambler? > > And please explain Macrovision--a greater offense to fair use than CSS. > > Not to mention the fact that this has no bearing on the > situation of DVDs, since they are not transmitted but purchased. > My god.. can we just write a response to their freaking FAQ? Can > we! The question is, where can we post it on the net for all to > see? John, can you do it, or think of someone who would? > > I relish a PR offensive. We've had nothing on that front. Does > anyone feel likewise? http://www.opendvd.org/ As far as I understand it, that site can use some help in cleaning up the documents that are already there and putting some legal arguments online to counter the FUD that's being spread by parties like MPAA. regards, Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 08:50:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA13511 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:50:54 -0400 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 IAA13508 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:50:53 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-13.suba.com [206.69.121.205]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA06009 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:52:15 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:51:37 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bfcc91$4a386f80$cd7945ce@bugbug> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Rik van Riel > Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 6:10 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ > > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > > Ron wrote: > > > > #For example, the law has always recognized that a show sent > > > #by scrambled pay-per-view signal may not be viewed or copied > > > through the use > > > #of an unauthorized, illegal descrambler. The owner of the signal > > > has – and has > > > #always had -- a legal right to scramble the signal to prevent > > > unauthorized access > > > #to the signal for viewing or to make copies of the show. > > > > > > Yes, but what about taping from an authorized legal descrambler? > > > And please explain Macrovision--a greater offense to fair use > than CSS. > > > > Not to mention the fact that this has no bearing on the > > situation of DVDs, since they are not transmitted but purchased. > > > My god.. can we just write a response to their freaking FAQ? Can > > we! The question is, where can we post it on the net for all to > > see? John, can you do it, or think of someone who would? > > > > I relish a PR offensive. We've had nothing on that front. Does > > anyone feel likewise? > > http://www.opendvd.org/ > > As far as I understand it, that site can use some help in > cleaning up the documents that are already there and putting > some legal arguments online to counter the FUD that's being > spread by parties like MPAA. This is a start. It would be nice to get something viewed on a Declan McCullagh scale.. though I don't know how many hits opendvd regularly gets.. sparky > > regards, > > Rik > -- > The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network > of people. That is its real strength. > > Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies > http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 08:50:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA13519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:50:57 -0400 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 IAA13516 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:50:56 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-13.suba.com [206.69.121.205]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA06013 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:52:18 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:51:40 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bfcc91$4becd640$cd7945ce@bugbug> 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: <20000602013240.A7019@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 Paul wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:10:59AM -0500, Tim Neu wrote: > [ ... ] > > What does everyone think about reproducing their Q&A session in the > > OpenDVD CSS FAQ? I think a line for line rebuttal of the MPAA > > (mis)information would be nice - especially after all of the negative PR > > they generated. > > > > Maybe a sub-section on "What is the MPAA" entitled "What the MPAA > > believes". > > > > Or should something like this go in another document? (for the sake of > > impartiality?) > > A specific, detailed rebuttal of the MPAA FAQ definitely belongs in its > own document. Seconded. spark > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 08:53:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA13622 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:53:06 -0400 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 IAA13619 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:53:05 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-13.suba.com [206.69.121.205]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA06051 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:54:27 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:53:50 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bfcc91$9936e8a0$cd7945ce@bugbug> 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: 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 Tim wrote: > > The annotator is neat - but I think a web page with specific responses > to each FAQ question would be easier to read. > > What does everyone think about reproducing their Q&A session in the > OpenDVD CSS FAQ? I think a line for line rebuttal of the MPAA > (mis)information would be nice - especially after all of the negative PR > they generated. > > Maybe a sub-section on "What is the MPAA" entitled "What the MPAA > believes". > > Or should something like this go in another document? (for the sake of > impartiality?) > > Anyone else interested? I can do some of it. I just think it needs to > be done... It's about time we start doing a bit more PR ourselves... I think we should do the MPAA FAQ, and the CSS-DVD FAQ. We could do Valenti's LA piece.. I would suggest that we make our response look very dissimilar from their original page. Verbatim quotes and a link to the original so everyone can check our spelling, but the look/feel totally different. Just to avoid any unpleasantness. Also we don't want the consumers to start confusing our brands. :) sparky > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=-=-=-=- > ______ _ __ "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 > / <_/ / / < / (_; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:41:23 -0400 Received: from localhost (riel@localhost) by duckman.distro.conectiva (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA15893 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:42:42 -0300 X-Authentication-Warning: duckman.distro.conectiva: riel owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:42:42 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <000001bfcc91$4a386f80$cd7945ce@bugbug> 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, 2 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > > > I relish a PR offensive. We've had nothing on that front. Does > > > anyone feel likewise? > > > > http://www.opendvd.org/ > > > > As far as I understand it, that site can use some help in > > cleaning up the documents that are already there and putting > > some legal arguments online to counter the FUD that's being > > spread by parties like MPAA. > > This is a start. It would be nice to get something viewed on a > Declan McCullagh scale.. though I don't know how many hits > opendvd regularly gets.. At the moment, OpenDVD.org gets about 20k hits/day, which is 10% of the most busy period. About the documents you want to see, you don't seem to understand my email. The people working on opendvd.org (not me any more, I have no time) are extremely busy and new volunteers are needed to write up the documents. regards, Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 12:19:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA16807 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:19:40 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA16804 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:19:37 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c05-157.015.popsite.net [64.24.76.157]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA20766 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000602091750.00b28440@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 09:19:54 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Amicus Brief Gets Slashdotted 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'm sure no one here reads slashdot, but they just put up a piece linking to the Amicus Brief and discussing other developments. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/06/02/1338232&mode=thread -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 12:45:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA17220 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:45:20 -0400 Received: from dial159.roadrunner.com (sf-du159.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.159]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA17194 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:45:14 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial159.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01044 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:47:06 -0600 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:47:05 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dean Marks' comments on 1201 rule-making Message-ID: <20000602104704.A696@localhost> References: <20000602000130.A6304@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000602000130.A6304@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:01:31AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:01:31AM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > Page 6: "Encrypted television signals are protected by various sections of the Communications Act. None of these sections provide for exceptions for users to decrypt signals without the authorization of the broadcaster." To paraphrase: Because no exception is granted in the case of a single venue we may conclude that no exception is warranted when all venues are access controlled. This is also true in the case for an authorized copy after first sale. Sigh. Regardless of whether or not 47 USC 553, 605 establishes a precedent for paracopyright, there is no precedent for _universal_ access control that applies after first sale. I might add that s.605 forbids access control on public TV broadcasts. That's not an "exception" only because it is a "prohibition." Historically, implict access control was maintained by leasing rather than sale of a copy (e.g. the movie industry). Existing explicit access control (cable TV) makes no pretense to univerality or applicability after first sale. The s.1201 access control is unprecedented to the extent that it might apply after first sale, and it makes access control an explicit feature of Title 17. Prior to the 1201(a) access control was an accident arising from sale vs. lease of a copy. So, how is it that access controls "promote progress"? Because access comes before use of any kind, I'd argue that it is too coarse an instrument to maintain the delicate balance. Where is that Learned Hand quote about we must look to what was left out of copyright, not just what was written in to copyright? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 13:19:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA18216 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:19:38 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA18213 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:19:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20000602172029.6577.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:20:29 PDT Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:20:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Attacking Commerce Clause foundation for Paracopyright 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 was strolling through the recent US Supreme Court decisions and found two that show a continued drift away from the expansive commerce clause readings. This trend contiues and extends that started by US. v. Lopez. It appears that Wickard v. Filburn wasn't even mentioned. This is significant, because the foundation for the anti-circumvention provisions in 1201(a) are based on 'paracopyright' protection, which stems from the commerce power (as noted in the Congressional Record). I think there is a good chance to make a Constitutional argument against 1201(a)(1,2) overbreadth because access circumvention, when used in a way that would otherwise be "fair use" is a non-economic activity. Similarly, distributing free tools for this on a website is non-commercial activity. Recall that "fair use" already considers the commercial nature of the use and the impact to market value in its calculus. The new cases are: _____________________________________________________ UNITED STATES v. MORRISON [99-5] (May 15, 2000) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZS.html The Court struck down part of the "Violence Against Women" civil rights section 42 U.S.C. § 13981 which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. (see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/13981.html ). "Held: Section 13981 cannot be sustained under the Commerce Clause ... (a) The Commerce Clause does not provide Congress with authority to enact §13981’s federal civil remedy. A congressional enactment will be invalidated only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 568, 577—578. Petitioners assert that §13981 can be sustained under Congress’ commerce power as a regulation of activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. The proper framework for analyzing such a claim is provided by the principles the Court set out in Lopez. First, in Lopez, the noneconomic, criminal nature of possessing a firearm in a school zone was central to the Court’s conclusion that Congress lacks authority to regulate such possession. Similarly, gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense, economic activity. " The decision was 5-4. Thomas filed a short but sweet concurring opinion. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZC.html _____________________________________________________ JONES v. UNITED STATES [99-5739] (May 22, 2000) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5739.ZO.html "[A]n owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property “used in” commerce or commerce-affecting activity; arson of such a dwelling, therefore, is not subject to federal prosecution under [18 U.S.C.] § 844(i)." The Court rejected three theories of how a residence is "used in" commerce: (1) collateral for a interstate mortgage (2) casualty insurance from interstate vendor (3) receiving of natural gas from interstate sources. This decision was unanimous and was written by Ginsburg. (!) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 13:43:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA18607 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:43:04 -0400 Received: from dial142.roadrunner.com (sf-du142.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.142]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA18603 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:43:00 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial142.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01470 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:44:53 -0600 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:44:52 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Attacking Commerce Clause foundation for Paracopyright Message-ID: <20000602114452.A1341@localhost> References: <20000602172029.6577.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000602172029.6577.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 10:20:29AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 10:20:29AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > I was strolling through the recent US Supreme Court decisions and found > two that show a continued drift away from the expansive commerce clause > readings. This trend contiues and extends that started by US. v. Lopez. > It appears that Wickard v. Filburn wasn't even mentioned. > > This is significant, because the foundation for the anti-circumvention > provisions in 1201(a) are based on 'paracopyright' protection, which > stems from the commerce power (as noted in the Congressional Record). > > I think there is a good chance to make a Constitutional argument > against 1201(a)(1,2) overbreadth because access circumvention, when > used in a way that would otherwise be "fair use" is a non-economic > activity. Similarly, distributing free tools for this on a website is > non-commercial activity. Recall that "fair use" already considers the > commercial nature of the use and the impact to market value in its > calculus. Non-copyright use (e.g. private viewing from an authorized after first sale) has no economic impact on the copyright owner, and is even further from the commerce clause than fair use. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 15:28:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA20478 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:28:51 -0400 Received: from duckman.distro.conectiva (brutus.conectiva.com.br [200.250.58.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA20475 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:28:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (riel@localhost) by duckman.distro.conectiva (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA19046 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:30:04 -0300 X-Authentication-Warning: duckman.distro.conectiva: riel owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:30:04 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dean Marks' comments on 1201 rule-making In-Reply-To: <20000602104704.A696@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 Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:01:31AM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > Page 6: > "Encrypted television signals are protected by various sections of the > Communications Act. None of these sections provide for exceptions for > users to decrypt signals without the authorization of the broadcaster." > > To paraphrase: Because no exception is granted in the case of a > single venue we may conclude that no exception is warranted when > all venues are access controlled. This is also true in the case > for an authorized copy after first sale. Not really. After the authorised decryption, the customer could tape the (now decrypted) broadcast for, eg., time-delayed viewing. I don't see this paragraph tell us _anything_ about what US consumers are allowed to once they've legally decrypted the content... [Boy am I glad to live in a free country...] regards, Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 15:56:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA20962 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:56:17 -0400 Received: from dial204.roadrunner.com (sf-du204.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.204]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA20956 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:56:14 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial204.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02639 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:58:09 -0600 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:58:08 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dean Marks' comments on 1201 rule-making Message-ID: <20000602135808.A2535@localhost> References: <20000602104704.A696@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:30:04PM -0300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:30:04PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:01:31AM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > > > > Page 6: > > "Encrypted television signals are protected by various sections of the > > Communications Act. None of these sections provide for exceptions for > > users to decrypt signals without the authorization of the broadcaster." > > > > To paraphrase: Because no exception is granted in the case of a > > single venue we may conclude that no exception is warranted when > > all venues are access controlled. This is also true in the case > > for an authorized copy after first sale. > > Not really. After the authorised decryption, the customer could > tape the (now decrypted) broadcast for, eg., time-delayed viewing. > > I don't see this paragraph tell us _anything_ about what US > consumers are allowed to once they've legally decrypted the > content... I'm not sure I understand your comment. Roughly speaking, decryption is access, and the issue of duplication is legally disjoint from access. Mr. Marks is arguing that the paracopyright language in Title 47 of the US Code doesn't allow exceptions to access control --- so there should be no exception to Title 17 (copyright) access control either. However, the point of 1201 rule making is to permit descrambling, i.e. to allow access, if it is necessary for the work to be used. I am trying to point out that even if Title 47 establishes precedent for access control laws, it does very little to establish precedent for denying exceptions to access control. The MPAA et al. have the annoying habit of talking about "protected," without saying whether they mean 1201(a) access control which "protects" the copyrighted _work_ (from being accessed), or 1201(b) rights controls which would "protect" a _copy_ from being duplicated (among other things). Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 17:50:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA22718 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:50:08 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22715 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:50:07 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:54:32 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D7D@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss]: Serious serious problem Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:54:31 -0400 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 Probably you all have see this already, but in the spirit of this warm Friday afternoon, you should know that rampant piracy of Napster really is a threat to our values: http://www.theonion.com/onion3618/kid_rock_starves.html Who knows where DeCSS will lead :). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 18:12:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA22975 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 18:12:42 -0400 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 SAA22972 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 18:12:40 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl111.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.111]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA04723 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <393830DD.F43B1FB3@cdpage.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 16:10:37 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]: Serious serious problem References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D7D@c100.clearway.com> Content-Type: text/html; 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 Leland Ray wrote:
Probably you all have see this already, but in the spirit of
this warm Friday afternoon, you should know that rampant piracy
of Napster really is a threat to our values:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3618/kid_rock_starves.html

Who knows where DeCSS will lead :).


Well, since you bring it up....
  

To: MERC-GMSV-TEXT@DISPATCH.REALCITIES.COM
Subject: Good Morning Silicon Valley Fri Jun 02 12:00:20 EDT 2000

You said Napster. Heh, heh-heh..

SoCal punk outfit The Offspring have begun selling unauthorized Napster
merchandise on the band's Web site, for which they will keep 100 percent of
the profits. Napster does not produce or market merchandise of its own. A
source close to the band explained the maneuver, saying "It isn't about
making money. In typical Offspring fashion, they think it's funny to f---
with people. They think Napster's cool and want to see how cool they
[really] are."

   http://www.offspring.com/

Also: http://www.brunching.com/features/feature-napstercontest.html
 

--
Dana J. Parker
http://www.cdpage.com
http://www.emediapro.net
http://www.dvdpro.net

mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com
  From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 18:35:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA23271 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 18:35:25 -0400 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 SAA23268 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 18:35:24 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-45.suba.com [206.69.121.237]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA29397 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:36:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:36:10 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bfcce2$f353e4e0$ed7945ce@bugbug> 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: 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 Rik wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > > > > > I relish a PR offensive. We've had nothing on that front. Does > > > > anyone feel likewise? > > > > > > http://www.opendvd.org/ > > > > > > As far as I understand it, that site can use some help in > > > cleaning up the documents that are already there and putting > > > some legal arguments online to counter the FUD that's being > > > spread by parties like MPAA. > > > > This is a start. It would be nice to get something viewed on a > > Declan McCullagh scale.. though I don't know how many hits > > opendvd regularly gets.. > > At the moment, OpenDVD.org gets about 20k hits/day, which > is 10% of the most busy period. > > About the documents you want to see, you don't seem to > understand my email. The people working on opendvd.org > (not me any more, I have no time) are extremely busy > and new volunteers are needed to write up the documents. I wasn't thinking we'd polish others docs, but make our own. I think the point is to do something under the Openlaw nomer. If OpenDVD would be interested in hosting Openlaw docs, that would be great IMO. sparky > > regards, > > Rik > -- > The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network > of people. That is its real strength. > > Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies > http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 2 19:08:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA23650 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 19:08:25 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA23647 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 19:08:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20000602230918.22982.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 16:09:18 PDT Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:09:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Post Mortem of our first Amicus 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 Now that the Amicus is done, I think it's a good time to do a post-mortem and examine the process we used. So ... What do people think worked well? What can we improve on? Some things that I thought were good are: 1. Making and revising an outline FIRST 2. Posting updated versions often (when we did it) 3. Numbering the lines so people could make specific comments 4. The lawyer-to-nonlawyer participation seemed healthy 5. Very little flaming occured -- we criticized work, not people 6. Iterated polishing/development of themes Some things that could be improved are: 1. Parallel development -- we should set up CVS 2. Posting updated versions often (when we didn't do it) 3. Managing the citations I'm very interested to hear what other people thought. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 00:01:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA25554 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:01:30 -0400 Received: from bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu (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 AAA25550 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:01:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20793 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:02:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:02:47 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Post Mortem of our first Amicus In-Reply-To: <20000602230918.22982.qmail@web509.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, 2 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Now that the Amicus is done, I think it's a good time to do a > post-mortem and examine the process we used. So ... > > What do people think worked well? What can we improve on? > > Some things that I thought were good are: > 1. Making and revising an outline FIRST > 2. Posting updated versions often (when we did it) > 3. Numbering the lines so people could make specific comments > 4. The lawyer-to-nonlawyer participation seemed healthy > 5. Very little flaming occured -- we criticized work, not people > 6. Iterated polishing/development of themes And we all worked together to hype ourselves on Slashdot :-) Seriously, I was really impressed with how well this worked. I think everybody did a great job, with extra kudos to Bryan and Wendy for doing the drafts. > > Some things that could be improved are: > 1. Parallel development -- we should set up CVS If you want to learn how to run a CVS archive, check out http://cvsbook.red-bean.com. It taught me how. > 2. Posting updated versions often (when we didn't do it) > 3. Managing the citations > > I'm very interested to hear what other people thought. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > http://photos.yahoo.com Again, great job all. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 00:56:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA25856 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:56:30 -0400 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 AAA25853 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:56:29 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12y5yO-0000WC-00 for ; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 23:55:48 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:55:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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 OK... Here is a (very) rough stab at debunking the MPAA faq... http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html It needs some sources, more HTML'izing, proofing, cleanup, etc. Also, there are many areas where some of the arguments are redundant... In short, it needs a lot of work. (it's not all that pretty, either). I'd be happy to make any changes or suggestions people have. (including possibly any better places to work on this!) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:07:02 -0400 Received: from [210.160.35.23] (helo=vaio) by ficus.frogspace.net with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12yFX5-0001Vv-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 11:08:16 -0400 Message-ID: <001d01bfcd6e$4ba40400$1723a0d2@vaio> From: "Robert Wilde" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:13:28 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html Good job. On QA #6 there are two additional points you could add about a consumer friendly DeCSS based DVD player. Both these points have been gleaned from the excellent information users on this list have been providing. 1. It will allow the creation of a hardware DVD player that shows a DVD in it's full digital quality. ("All the manufacturers of DVD players have signed an agreement not to provide a Firewire digital output." http://www.newscientist.com/news/news_224031.html) 2. It will allow the creation of a software DVD player that allows fair use screenshots to be taken from legally purchased DVD films. (See http://www.tiac.net/users/rongus/dvdcap.jpg for an example of what happens when you take a screenshot of your software DVD player) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 11:20:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30708 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:20:56 -0400 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 LAA30705 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:20:55 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl111.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.111]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA21350 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 08:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <393921DD.FE7EC2A8@cdpage.com> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 09:18:53 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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 Tim Neu wrote: > OK... > > Here is a (very) rough stab at debunking the MPAA faq... > > http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html > Spell-check, for starters. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 15:08:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA31693 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 15:08:50 -0400 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 PAA31690 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 15:08:49 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-10.suba.com [206.69.121.202]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA22929 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:10:13 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:09:36 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bfcd8f$429a7760$ca7945ce@bugbug> 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tim wrote: > > > OK... > > Here is a (very) rough stab at debunking the MPAA faq... > > http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html > > It needs some sources, more HTML'izing, proofing, cleanup, etc. Also, > there are many areas where some of the arguments are redundant... In > short, it needs a lot of work. > > (it's not all that pretty, either). > > I'd be happy to make any changes or suggestions people have. (including > possibly any better places to work on this!) Something I'd like to see, particularly if this is to become an "Openlaw rebuttal", is the following: 1. for each question where the MPAA/DVDCCA offers its own take on the situation, a thorough analysis of the assumptions behind each of their questions. 2. *only* then, a statement of what we consider the meaning/intent behind these assumptions. Tim's response to 4 for example gets to the nub but needs foundation IMO. My own example follows. I wax a bit at the end.. though I think it's justified more or less. :) sparky Q: What is the DVD Content Scramble System (CSS) and how does it work? MPAA's A: CSS is the copy protection system adopted by the motion picture industry and consumer electronics manufacturers to provide security to copyrighted content of DVDs and to prevent unauthorized copying of that content. CSS is akin to the lock on your house. Anticipating what digital technology meant for anti-piracy efforts, the film industry relied on the security provided by CSS in manufacturing, producing and distributing to the public copyrighted motion pictures in DVD format. Those motion pictures, many of which involved investments of tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, were distributed on CSS-protected DVDs. CSS allows consumers to enjoy the benefits of digital entertainment because the motion picture industry is able to issue their films on DVD while at the same time preventing massive piracy of their copyrighted works. De-encryption destroys this protection, which is why distribution of de-encryption devices were formally prohibited in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Openlaw A: [I don't think we should say "Real Answer" - let the reader decide] When the MPAA says "copy protection system", what they are talking about is not a system which inhibits copying per se, but rather a system which renders useless any copies you may make. You can copy the contents of your DVDs to your hard drive; but because the CSS descrambling mechanism depends on the DVD content being in a hardware DVD drive, playing it from your hard drive is not possible. Therefore the description "copy protection" is really an access protection scheme. "Copy protection" is the term the MPAA uses in their PR offensive in order to appear as though all CSS does is prevent copying, when in fact it prevents far more. It prevents you, the consumer, the citizen, from even viewing your DVD except on a platform of which the MPAA has officially given its approval. As for the "protection" offered by CSS: leaving aside the fact that, as a 40-bit encryption scheme, CSS is, in the parlance of the cryptology industry, "weak" and decryptable at runtime [references], there is precious little protection offered by CSS against a determined copyright infringer. In fact, no decryption of DVD content needs to occur in order to "pirate" a disk. All one need do is copy the content to another DVD. With the original content intact on the second DVD, an officially approved DVD hardware player will play it just as it will play the original disk. The statement "De-encryption destroys this protection" is a red herring, therefore, masking the assumption that CSS offers any real protection at all. The sort of "protection" offered is, therefore, against the casual "pirate" - someone who is not really determined to infringe copyright, or in other words, you, the public. Alternative protection schemes which seem viable but would not infringe on fair uses of DVDs would have removed the hardware player from the mechanism, or in some other way involved putting the access key into the control of the DVD purchaser. For instance, a system where a DVD purchaser could download a player key over the internet and store it on their hard drive - even an individual one for each DVD - does not seem far-fetched. This would be directly analogous to the way that shareware vendors manage the sale of their software, where purchasers are allowed to test a piece of software before they buy it, and then download a number over the internet which is their proof of purchase and allows them unlimited use. The question is: why did the MPAA not use an alternate protection scheme? It is possible that they did not imagine any others. That much benefit of the doubt, however, defies credibility. The real answer is that they did not like anyone else - that would mean you - being in control of the decryption keys. That is because the MPAA, in common with the rest of the content provision industry in general, wants not only to be in control of the content they distribute, but the technology by which they distribute it. In fact, looking at the history of this industry, its attacks on every new technology of which they were not in complete control, from the cassette tape to the VCR, it is safe to say that these people are not really in the content provision business; they are in the technology business. You, the consumer, the citizen, are stepping on their turf, with your home computer, your Winamp, your Sonique, your MPEG3 or MPEG4 player, your Usenet, your Napster, your internet connection itself. The industry-approved DVD players are the industry's way of taking that land back, even if it means making it illegal to use your own computer and internet connection in ways which have until now been unquestionably your right. [tie inspirationally back to CSS as access control preventing fair use] > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > ______ _ __ "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 > / <_/ / / < / (_ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 16:18:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA32352 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:18:57 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA32349 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:18:56 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:23:25 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D80@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:23:24 -0400 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 Hmm, the whole tone should be changed; too emotional. Links back to the main FAQ that describes the facts in more of a reporter style would help, especially in the questions that deal with DeCSS itself. The MPAA's FAQ throws around too many loaded terms without foundation, and a simple explanation of the facts cuts very deeply into their arguments without adding any interpretation. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 16:29:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA32501 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:29:29 -0400 Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA32498 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:29:28 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([24.13.176.232]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with ESMTP id <20000603203054.GMPV13133.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@[192.168.1.100]> for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 13:30:54 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 13:30:57 -0700 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ From: Danny Silverman To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D80@c100.clearway.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 I've gotta agree there - emotions don't really help things. In addition, something like on the Peacefire site that is specifically targeted to reporters might be nice. Short facts, long facts, quotes, citations. Most important is a serious, short, and pointed rebuttal of only the most important facts, otherwise no one from the other side, or stuck in the middle, will really take the time to read it. I think a simple MPAA definition "dictionary" of sorts really would mess up all of their arguments, and cut through a lot of their FUD. BTW, I'm new, so please excuse - I know now what I do. Feel free to flame. \\|// (o o) ------------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------------------------- We were given two ears and one mouth for a reason - so that we would talk less and listen more. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Danny Silverman | webmaster@mindwire.org Webmaster, EduDyne Foundation | http://www.mindwire.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Leland Ray > Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:23:24 -0400 > To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ > > > Hmm, the whole tone should be changed; too emotional. > > Links back to the main FAQ that describes the facts in > more of a reporter style would help, especially in the > questions that deal with DeCSS itself. > > The MPAA's FAQ throws around too many loaded terms without > foundation, and a simple explanation of the facts cuts > very deeply into their arguments without adding any > interpretation. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 16:44:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00997 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:44:08 -0400 Received: from dial150.roadrunner.com (dial150.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.150] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA00994 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:44:06 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial150.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00976 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:46:01 -0600 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:46:00 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000603144600.B715@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:55:47PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The statement "CSS has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with copying" is wrong. 1. CSS probably isn't copy protection in the legal sense of 1201(b). 2. CSS does not prevent copying because CSS is not an attempt deal with copying per se. It is access control. 3. CSS, as a side effect of being an access control scheme, does hinder some very specific modes of copying. 4. The modes of copying that CSS fails to prevent exist not because clever people outwitted the system -- no, one just *ignores* the existence of CSS entirely and copies the whole disk. In this sense one is going clear _around_ CSS, rather than by finding a clever way to go _through_ it. CSS is access control. It has incidental function as copy control in very limited scenarios, but all those scenarios involving getting access to the work --- something that is also necessary to play the disk. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 16:48:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01150 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:48:12 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01147 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:48:12 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:52:41 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D82@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Post Mortem of our first Amicus Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:52:41 -0400 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 I only regret that I had to do things that allow me to eat and live indoors that week so I couldn't contribute like I wanted to. As for CVS, it works well with text based formats that actually need version control. It is, however, not a document management system, and so as we produce more documents there may be design issues. One important consideration is to preserve the memory of what we've written, there are a lot of smart people here who have made significant effort and it would be very sad if it were forgotten. I hate to hold up my hand in a relatively open place, but one of my jobs is cvs administrator, so if technical advice or help is needed, I'll donate cycles. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 16:54:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01300 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:54:07 -0400 Received: from MIT.EDU (SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.72.1.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA01297 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:54:06 -0400 Received: from GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA06970; Sat, 3 Jun 00 16:55:25 EDT Received: from melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.45]) by grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA20977 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oobleck.mit.edu (OOBLECK.MIT.EDU [18.54.0.122]) by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA11124 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethf@localhost) by oobleck.mit.edu (8.9.3) id QAA06569; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006032055.QAA06569@oobleck.mit.edu> From: Seth Finkelstein To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There could be a short, one-page summary which just hits the high points and then refers the reader elsewhere for more detail. For example: Q: Isn't DeCSS a tool for mass-scale copyright violation? A: No, because making a direct copy of the bits on a DVD doesn't have anything to do with decoding the content. Illegal resellers have equipment which easily makes bitwise copies of any DVD. DeCSS doesn't matter at all. For further explanation, see ... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Web Programmer sethf@mit.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 17:33:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01601 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 17:33:11 -0400 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 RAA01598 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 17:33:10 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-51.suba.com [206.69.121.243]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA25594 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:34:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:33:55 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bfcda3$6b371ac0$f37945ce@bugbug> 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: <200006032055.QAA06569@oobleck.mit.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth wrote: > > There could be a short, one-page summary which just hits the > high points and then refers the reader elsewhere for more detail. > For example: > > Q: Isn't DeCSS a tool for mass-scale copyright violation? > A: No, because making a direct copy of the bits on a DVD doesn't have > anything to do with decoding the content. Illegal resellers have > equipment which easily makes bitwise copies of any DVD. DeCSS doesn't > matter at all. For further explanation, see ... I think we should crack out a few answers before we start applying formats, a la Bryan's post mortem #1. I like the idea: MPAA's q, MPAA's a, Openlaw's Short A, Openlaw's Long A, - for example - but this may not be necessary for all answers. Why don't we start a single string for each q responded to. (We should include ALL of their q's in our response, even the ones to which we respond "This is true" e.g. their q on the DVDCCA.) I see there are 20 in the MPAA faq, I think there are only 10 or so in the DVDCCA faq. My feeling is that one participant could take each string for minor monitoring and for summarizing purposes (if we do this, I volunteer for the MPAA q #4, since I've already submitted something for that, unless someone else really wants that one). Then all participants submit points that they think a particular response should mention. The response "owners" put up outlines of points and we draft answers. When we've got substantial outline/answer, we worry about format of the page, short/long answer, making it palatable/digestable. sparky > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Seth Finkelstein Consulting Web Programmer sethf@mit.edu > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 19:22:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02661 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:22:35 -0400 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 TAA02658 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:22:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA10080 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:24:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:24:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <001d01bfcd6e$4ba40400$1723a0d2@vaio> 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, 4 Jun 2000, Robert Wilde wrote: > 2. It will allow the creation of a software DVD player that allows fair use > screenshots to be taken from legally purchased DVD films. (See > http://www.tiac.net/users/rongus/dvdcap.jpg for an example of what happens > when you take a screenshot of your software DVD player) > Carefull here. Most Software DVD manufacturers claim that this is a technical issue, based in part on the fact that most DVD players use overlays. PowerDVD supposedly supports screenshots- Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 21:50:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA03447 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:50:27 -0400 Received: from rmx441-mta.mail.com (rmx441-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.44]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA03444 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:50:26 -0400 From: majeredb8@altavista.net Received: from weba6.iname.net (weba6.iname.net [165.251.4.16]) by rmx441-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03352 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:51:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by weba6.iname.net (8.9.1a/8.9.2.Alpha2) id VAA27152; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:51:54 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0006032151546I.11310@weba6.iname.net> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:51:54 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amicus Brief Gets Slashdotted Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I hope that this is an ironic statement :\. ---- you wrote: > I'm sure no one here reads slashdot, but they just put up a piece linking > to the Amicus Brief and discussing other developments. > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/06/02/1338232&mode=thread Although this is slightly off topic, it's worth mentioning. I'm a high school student planning on taking up IP law later on, and am involved in the National Forensics League policy debate program at my school. Next year's topic involves the nation's privacy policy, and already there is talk of cases restricting intellectual property laws, specifically mentioning DeCSS. I strongly recommend that everyone look into this and support high schoolers next year; perhaps those of you running web pages could mention that this is a great policy to argue. The brief that Openlaw filed mentions that we want to encourage discourse of important technology issues; teenagers should be given the opportunity to do so as well. Here are a few links of interest to the HS debate community: National Forensics League 2000-2001 Topic Analysis National Federation of High Schools http://www.nfhs.org/Area_II.htm High School Debate Home http://hs.debate.net WarBarge Debate http://www.warbarge.com I thank everyone in advance for their help! Steve Sawyer Senior Varsity Member, Chaminade Debating Devils Chaminade College Prep - St. Louis, MO http://www.chaminademo.com | MajereDB8@altavista.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 3 21:53:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA03565 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:53:46 -0400 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 VAA03560 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:53:44 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12yPb6-0005qF-00 for ; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:53:04 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 20:53:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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 OK. Summarizing MPAA FAQ issues so far: 1. Spell Check. (writing is not one of my strong points... :-) ) 2. Less Emotional - More "unbiased" reporting - let the reader decide based on level-headed facts (backed up by links). My emotion behind this is what caused me to write the thing to begin with - so I think it is safe to say I am biased. :-) I definately agree, however, that the MPAA faq should be as complete, accurate, and as impartial and unemotional as the CSS FAQ. (Great job on that everyone - by the way). As easy as it is to get emotional about it, a level-headed factual rebuttal is much more convincing. 3. (possibly part of #2) - Change "Real Answer" to something less confrontational. 4. Have common themes in the rebuttal referenced to sections in the document below - with links where more information could be found. This should help us avoid repeating ourselves throughout the document. 5. Changes to question #6 to add additional fair use information. (firewire agreement, etc). Actually, this can be our first "refrence" section entitled "Restrictions in the MPAA CSS license" - which will be interesting to put together, since I don't know if we have access to a copy of the actual CSS license terms. We can make some basic assumptions, though - from what has been reported by the media, etc. Maybe we should take a step back (before digging in too much) and outline what we want this thing to look like. Intro Q/A for each FAQ entry, refrencing arguments below. MPAA's Analogies - why they are misleading or inaccurate. (or should this be in the Q/A section where each analogy is provided?) Legality of DeCSS Legality of Reverse-engineering Limitations required by a CSS license Rights granted by fair use doctrine that are blocked by the CSS license. Rights granted by the purchase of a DVD movie - "Home Viewing Only" DMCA origins, and why it is not needed to prosecute piracy. Rights effectively destroyed by the DMCA. Copy Protection vs. Access Protection Summary - Speculation of MPAA's real goals and intentions (?) Or not... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 23:20:49 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12yQxP-0007vf-00 for ; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 22:20:11 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:20:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <001d01bfcd6e$4ba40400$1723a0d2@vaio> 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, 4 Jun 2000, Robert Wilde wrote: > >http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html > > Good job. > > On QA #6 there are two additional points you could add about a consumer > friendly DeCSS based DVD player. Both these points have been gleaned from > the excellent information users on this list have been providing. > > 1. It will allow the creation of a hardware DVD player that shows a DVD in > it's full digital quality. ("All the manufacturers of DVD players have > signed an agreement not to provide a Firewire digital output." > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news_224031.html) Added. (or will be when I finish making all of the changes tonight.) Anyone want to comment on the legality of a market-wide "agreement" like this? > 2. It will allow the creation of a software DVD player that allows fair use > screenshots to be taken from legally purchased DVD films. (See > http://www.tiac.net/users/rongus/dvdcap.jpg for an example of what happens > when you take a screenshot of your software DVD player) Do you still want to put something like this on? (since this is a general problem with "overlay" programs in general - and another list members states that the PowerDVD program can take screen shots of DVD video). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:49:24 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12ySL8-0001Zp-00 for ; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 23:48:46 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 23:48:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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 Anyone who would like to work on the MPAA FAQ, I have updated (at least as much as I have time to do right now) with peoples suggestions. There is a "to do" section on the top. (if I have missed anything - or if you think something else should be changed, let me know). http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:52:13 -0400 Received: from GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA20721; Sun, 4 Jun 00 01:53:49 EDT Received: from melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.45]) by grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA23150 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oobleck.mit.edu (OOBLECK.MIT.EDU [18.54.0.122]) by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA03427 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethf@localhost) by oobleck.mit.edu (8.9.3) id BAA06960; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006040553.BAA06960@oobleck.mit.edu> From: Seth Finkelstein To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu For Q14, the answer can be roughly: "Fair Use" can be a judicial doctrine, necessary to balance First Amendment constitutional concerns against the monopoly granted by copyright. Reference: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html "The fair use statute: The doctrine of fair use developed over the years as courts tried to balance the rights of copyright owners with society's interest in allowing copying in certain, limited circumstances. This doctrine has at its core a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Web Programmer sethf@mit.edu http://sethf.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 05:06:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA07943 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 05:06:43 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA07940 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 05:06:42 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 12yWO9-0000IS-00; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:08:09 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 12yWOA-00040T-00; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:08:10 +0200 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:08:10 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000604110810.B25527@inka.de> References: <001d01bfcd6e$4ba40400$1723a0d2@vaio> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu on Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 07:24:01PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 07:24:01PM -0400, Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Robert Wilde wrote: > > > 2. It will allow the creation of a software DVD player that allows fair use > > screenshots to be taken from legally purchased DVD films. (See > > http://www.tiac.net/users/rongus/dvdcap.jpg for an example of what happens > > when you take a screenshot of your software DVD player) > > > Carefull here. Most Software DVD manufacturers claim that this is a > technical issue, based in part on the fact that most DVD players use > overlays. PowerDVD supposedly supports screenshots- Yes from what I remember of the 2 software player's I've seen in action, at least one of them does support screen shots. I will check to make sure. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 06:37:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA08407 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 06:37:26 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA08404 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 06:37:25 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVM00FVGLKOEJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 03:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 03:59:41 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-reply-to: <000201bfcd8f$429a7760$ca7945ce@bugbug> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVM00FVHLKOEJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Tim wrote: > > OK... > > > > Here is a (very) rough stab at debunking the MPAA faq... > > > > http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html > > > > It needs some sources, more HTML'izing, proofing, cleanup, etc. Also, > > there are many areas where some of the arguments are redundant... In > > short, it needs a lot of work. One of the problems with this FAQ is that it is providing answers to their answers rather than answers to the real questions. I think we should answer the questions first, then answer their answers. I think we want to make this less look like an "us vs. them" kind of them and make look more like "those guys are lying to us" kind of thing. Anyways, here are my opinions about the FAQ so far: I think that somewhere on #3 (http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html#whatiscss) we should say something like: A) Technically speaking, CSS is just an encryption layer that enshrouds the true native format of DVD which is MPEG-2 and AC-3 (both of which are essentially open formats for high quality video and audio). A DVD may contain other data as well. But in the end all, it does is change one representation of bits into another. B) Among CSS's known uses are, barring any other way for a developer to unenshroud the DVD content, (1) to allow the DVD-CCA to limit a player's ability to play selected titles, (2) to allow a DVD player to prevent an enduser from playing a selected title in an country code that does not match one authorized by the player, (3) Force the playing, or not playing of certain sections of the DVD's video content up activiation of the player with a given DVD disc in it (for example, commercials at the start of the DVD.) As far as is known, the DVD-CCA licences the use of a CSS decryptor to developer only if they agree to implement (2) and (3) in a way they describe, and are under arbitrary control of (1) at the descrition of the DVD-CCA by virtue of what decryption keys are disclosed to the developer. A) should be reviewed by someone with more inside knowledge into how a DVD players works than I. B) should be reviewed by someone who understands the crypoanalysis of CSS. The answer to the answer should say: 1) Calling CSS a copy protection scheme is wrong (... 1201(b) citation.) The existence of CSS or not plays absolutely no role in the ability to copy a DVD. Whether encypted or not, the DVD contains a group of binary files that can be copied intact without any loss of information via (... describe means by which this can be done; discuss tools such as "DVDRip".) In particular a CSS encrypted DVD which is copied in this manner can be played back in the copied form, since it is bit for bit identical as provided by the means of the copying. Indeed I think its important to present the way in which a CSS encrypted DVD can be copied *before* even mentioning deCSS. Then in #4 it should say: A) deCSS is a decryptor for CSS that, for all practical purposes, translates a CSS encrypted DVD back into the unenshrouded native DVD formats (MPEG2 and AC3 as described above.) deCSS gives developers the potential to create a DVD player with the restrictions (1), (2), and (3) as described in [#3 B) above] removed. As it is open source there is a clear license for any developer to use this source, including those developers that have created DVD players today under the DVD-CCA licensing (provided, this licence does not prevent them from using deCSS.) Actually, is deCSS considered open source or is it public domain? Am I violating the GPL by not shipping the two binaries as one on my web page? Can anyone clear this up for me? In response to their stuff: The question as to whether or not deCSS is authorized is central to the debate in the courts right now. There has been no ruling on this whatsoever, and no credible evidence has been presented to indicate that deCSS has any illegal contents in it whatsoever. Not only can deCSS be used to "break the CSS code" but so can every functioning DVD player (otherwise how could it play the DVD video/audio?) Anyone who tries to copy a DVD to their hard drive (decrypting the deCSS or not), will know that distributing DVD's over the internet is just not going to happen. Any back of the envelope calculations will show that the sheer size of a single DVD makes it totally impractical transfer over the internet to and end user with just a (cable) modem/DSL connection. Even under the assumption of increased capacity for end users in the future, any reasonable estimates puts this kind of activity at least (??) years away before its even plausible. If the "DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house" analogy has any logic to it, then so does the following: "A portion of your DVD player is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house". The reason that these analogies are the same is that indeed every DVD player has a CSS descrambler (which in essense is what deCSS is) in it. Without it your player would be unable to access the native formats which are required to play the video and audio. I think most people would agree that their DVD player is not a key that will unlock their house or anything like that. Part 5: A) The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is very new law (enacted in 1998?) that has never been tested in court. It appears to have some clauses that may pertain to this case including the right to have and/or protect access controls, the protection of reverse engineering for legitimate uses, as well as protection of fair use rights. It will remain to be seen what role this act takes in the courts. This act is considered very controvertial as it seems to have significantly extended a copyright holder's rights even beyond what she might want. The case of the MPAA against Eric Corely a/k/a Emanuel Goldstein and 2600 looks like it may be the first real test of the act if the prosecution tries to rely on it. My understanding of the injunction against 2600, Roman Kazan, and Shawn Remirdes (?) is that it was granted based on the notion that it might be ruled that deCSS is illegal at some future, however the damage it might do must be stopped now. In any event this reasoning was very ill founded as these three web sites alone do not represent the bulk of the distributions of deCSS, and by any measure deCSS has spread far beyond where it was before the injunction was issued (by now all the popular search engines will have indexed most of the hundreds of sites which host the deCSS utility). Part 6: A) Going after deCSS is hypocritical since it does not have anything to do with copying DVDs. Yet, other utilities such as DVDRip (which is much older than deCSS and has been known about for much longer) are clearly tools whose only purpose is to copy DVDs yet the MPAA has not pursued any action against sites which offer this utility. This is all about appearances for the DVD-CCA and MPAA. In order to entice movie studios into supporting the DVD format, the DVD-CCA has to convince those studios that CSS allows them to make more money from selling their content on the DVD format, than say VHS. For example, since a DVD can only (in theory) be played in the region that it has been programmed for, a black market which is based on distributing a DVD from one country zone to another in which the DVD in question has not been released (which is very typical for VHS piracy) can not happen. The DVD-CCA has told the studios that CSS prevents this, which is what has convinced the movie studios to adopt the DVD format. Of course, now that deCSS exists, CSS has been severely undermined. However, the fact that it has spread regardless of the injunction will not stop the DVD-CCA from pressing with the lawsuit. This is because when the movie studios complain to the DVD- CCA about the spread of deCSS, the DVD-CCA needs to be able to say something like "we are pursuing a court case against them, and intend to shut down every last one of these illegal sites; we've won an injunction against the most popular ones already, and we have the DMCA on our side -- we will prevail in the end, and CSS will be protected." They simply can't drop the case. It doesn't matter how bad it looks for their side. It doesn't matter how obviously they are wrong. And it doesn't even matter to them that this will be the case the strikes down the DMCA. They have a much more important (to them) goal, and that is to keep the movie studios happy, and keep them using their format. Part 7: A) Linux is not the only alternative operating system, and even under Windows there are many interoperability possibilities that are not presented by any commercially viable alternatives. As described above the DMCA is a very controvertial and complicated piece of legislation. It is both not clear that deCSS is in violation of the DMCA, nor is it clear that the DMCA will stand up to the court of law even if it is. Part 8: A) Neither side disagrees with the basic concept that priacy is illegal. It importance is obvious as it prevents an artist/inventor from owning their intellectual property, which would stiffle the world economy if not protected. For example see Vangelis vs. ??? (can't remember the record company's name) where the record company redistributed Vangelis' work without his permission. But deCSS doesn't have anything to do with piracy. Technologyically -- it *CAN'T*. Part 9: A) The record and movie industries have been given a new weapon -- the DMCA. They are hoping that they can leverage it to control aspects of media that go beyond copyright law, to their benefit of course. In addition, if one of the court cases is ruled favorably on the side of the media owners, then that court case can be cited in another media owner's case while it is fresh in people's minds. There is also a hysteria about the modern technological age. Personal computers are now capable of being robust and powerful media transports and as such end users have been able to enjoy fair use rights like never before. As such media owners are finding themselves less in control, and in some cases (such as the Napster case) they are finding their very role in the industry threatened (though we don't believe this to be the case for the DVD industry.) 1) See the comments about the internet above. The internet bandwidth capacity will not catch up to the DVD bandwidth requirements any time soon (its possible that a new, richer media format will be adopted by then.) Again note that deCSS plays no role in this whatsoever. Part 10: A) This a speculative question about piracy. It has nothing to do with deCSS. Part 11: A) Yes. 1) Anyone who is up to date on modern cryptography can attest, there are many encryption standards and mechanisms that will provide an extremely high degree of security -- i.e., a level that would prevent a typical "hacker" from simply breaking such a system just from observing it (regardless of the detail at which the system is observed.) For example TwoFish, RSA, and Elliptic curve cryptography, are so tough, there are no known attacks of any kind that will break their encyption system in a well formed implementation -- even if the hacker were *handed the source code* of the system. Given the level of technology today, there is no excuse for the DVD-CCA picking such a feable system. In particular, the final "nail in the coffin" in the breaking of the CSS crypto scheme relied on the extremely small key (36 bits (??) -- not even using the full specified 40 bits.) deCSS does not in anyway enable theft of DVDs or their content, and as such the thief analogy makes no sense. Part 12: A) It is not clear if the Livid player (which is a further derivative of deCSS) would be considered seperate by the MPAA (but it was the original point of all of this.) In any event, technically speaking all commerical DVD players decrypt DVD movie content. It would not make anysense for the MPAA to pursue them because they have been licenced to the original technology by the DVD-CCA. On a related note however, DVDRip, which does not decrypt DVDs, but which does copy them, does exist, and so far as is known, the MPAA has not pursued action against them. 1) This is technically incorrect. All DVD players decrypt DVD disc content. Part 13: A) "Pirates" can also obtain software (DVDRip) to make illegal copies (well, they could become illegal, by being redistributed.) It is not clear why the MPAA has not pursued DVDRip as it seems to fit the claims in their case more closely than deCSS. 1) As mentioned above the MPAA has excepted DVDRip for some unknown reason. Part 14: A) Yes. 1) The CSS encryption scheme as implemented and sustained by DVD players excluding Livid and with the excption of use of deCSS prevents the "fair use" provisions they refer too (recording an excerpt, for example.) As such, under the DMCA, any mechansim that enables fair use is protected, regardless of what ever other things are enabled by the mechanism -- precisely because the "fair use" was not enabled by the commercially available mechanisms. Part 15: A/1) Agree with MPAA's answer. But it has nothing to do with deCSS. Path 16: A) Of course its not fair to deprive the Linux community of the right not play DVDs. This indeed was the original purpose of deCSS, however as an open source licenced piece of source code it is not limited to that purpose. It should be pointed out that the one of the primary mechanisms by which the open source model works is to distribute the source as widely as possible as a means of testing the correctness of the program. Since the CSS decripting mechanism is operating system agnostic, by making a Windows version of the tool, it can be much more widely tested by Windows users (which far out number Linux users) while still serving the purpose of being used/tested for the purpose of making a Linux DVD player. Incidentally, the company "InterVideo" has announced plans to release a DVD player for Linux (and have the dubious distinction of being the only commercial DVD player vendor to do so) however so far it does not exist, and its not clear that they will be able to support it for very long (Linux users tend not to buy commercial software, which would lead to "InterVideo" eventually giving up on it soon after they deploy it.) 1) Talk is cheap. There are no commercially available linux based DVD players. Wanting it doesn't help it exist. Linux users want to watch DVDs, they only care that there is no player available. They don't care that the MPAA wants or does not want. The Livid group has answers, the MPAA does not. Part 17: A) Yes. Well, except for OS/2 which IBM wants to deny the existence of. 1) Having lots of choices doesn't mean having a choice that consumers want. BeOS, and FreeBSD users have a right to use their operating system, but they seem to be left out in the cold as far as playing DVDs is concerned. Telling to buy a Panasonic player (which does not plug into their high resolution monitor, only their crappy TV set) is not likely to sit well with them. Part 18: A) Yes. (There was a recent ruling on this.) 1) DeCSS conveys information (1) How does CSS work. DeCSS conveys ideas (2) Using a table is a fast and convenient way to reverse bits. Part 19: A) Absoluately! With the existence of deCSS, it is expected that DVD players which allow for more features than the current CSS licensees are allowed will become available. At the very least this will motivate the currently licensees to offer some sort of "counter- features" in their players to remain competitive (assuming they remain under the same licensing agreement that prevents them from enabling fair use features). Further more with the availability of DVD players on Linux, the vast array of applications available to Linux (in particular network appliances) will become more appealling. 1) The fact that DVD audio was postponed because of deCSS is evidence that CSS is a truly weak encryption scheme that not even the RIAA could deny. What's more important here is the fact that the industry was going to go ahead with it using CSS if deCSS had not appeared on the scene. The industry was willing to compound their initial mistake with yet another mistake. This is further evidence of deCSS as freedom of expression -- it expresses "CSS is weak" in a way that is more compelling than mere words could be. Part 20: A) Its about the DVD-CCA's perception to its other partners. It should be obvious by now that actually stopping the distrinution of deCSS is a futile endeavour. 1) Even they admit its about appearances. If their intend is not to totally outlaw what they believe is an illegal piece of software, then the suit itself is superficial. Part 21: A) As exactly stated, the question does not have bearing on what is at issue. Whether or not there has been piracy or whether or not there is potential for a substantial amount of piracy because of deCSS would a better question. The answer is no. 1) This statement is imprecise and is trying to appeal to their earlier analogies which they have "established". Since nearly all the statements they make seem to be under serious doubt, this statement has no weight behind it. Part 22: 1) The claims seem very theoretical, and certainly not backed up by and statistics that they should have observed from the VHS industry (where region codes are not possible.) They should be making solid projects based on this, rather than speculative statements. Why can't they make more quantitative statements? Probably because the "audience lost" to advance VHS viewing is 0. -- http://www.pobox.com/~qed/recess_for_css.html -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 06:37:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA08415 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 06:37:32 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA08412 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 06:37:31 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVM00FVGLKOEJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 03:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 03:59:41 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-reply-to: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVM00FVKLKPEJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <001d01bfcd6e$4ba40400$1723a0d2@vaio> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Robert Wilde wrote: > > 2. It will allow the creation of a software DVD player that allows fair use > > screenshots to be taken from legally purchased DVD films. (See > > http://www.tiac.net/users/rongus/dvdcap.jpg for an example of what happens > > when you take a screenshot of your software DVD player) > > > Carefull here. Most Software DVD manufacturers claim that this is a > technical issue, based in part on the fact that most DVD players use > overlays. PowerDVD supposedly supports screenshots- Hi guys, this is my first post here (I am not a law student or anything like that but I am involved in this case: http://www.pobox.com/~qed/recess_for_css.html) This brings me to an interesting point. I know that "our side" has claimed that the only reason deCSS exists is to enable DVD players on Linux/BeOS/FreeBSD etc., to which the judge has somehow given this issue earplay by claiming that the deCSS binaries on our websites are Windows programs. This seems like the a sticky point that we shouldn't be too caught up on. The fact is, OpenSource software exists on Windows as well. While the original reversers may have been desirous of a Linux DVD player, by putting into the opensource community they intrinsically allow for developers to create yet another DVD player with the set of features that the CSS licensees might not allow. These include removing the country zone, conversion to other output formats, taking screen shots, skipping the intro, repackaging with other content, further processing (cropping, excerpts, and so on) etc., etc., etc. I guess what I am saying is that there is little point in pushing this whole "alternative OS thing". Its useful for getting press and media attention, but I don't think it helps matters in the court room. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 08:05:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA08859 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:05:39 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.186.16]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA08856 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:05:38 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19791; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:06:36 -0400 Message-Id: <200006041206.IAA19791@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:40:45 MDT." <20000601144045.A2829@localhost> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 08:06:06 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: : : : This has seen some significant work by the MPAA since I last looked. : : 1. : "I hear that DVD pirates dont even need DeCSS to make illegal : copies. Pirates can easily obtain hardware that can copy DVDs. So why : are you taking action? : : "The fact that there may be multiple ways to violate the law : does not make DeCSS any less illegal. The MPAA attacks numerous forms : of piracy in different ways worldwide. MPAA is actively pursuing : enforcement actions against all illegal means to copy and distribute : DVDs." : : Short answer: CSS is access control, not copy control. CSS correlates : perfectly with access control, and to the extent that it has an : incidental role as copy control, it functions best to hinder legal copying, : and functions not-at-all in the instance that is most illegal (industrial : piracy.) : : 2. : They mention fair use, and mention (not explicitly) the 47 USC 665 : paracopyright language as precedent. They state that fair use doesn't : give a right to access. : : This should be taken head-on. The question is not whether fair use : grants a right to access. This has causality wrong, access comes before : use: it is a prerequisite. The thing which comes second can, by definition, : never give a right to the thing which comes first (in this case access.) : : The real question is if the thing which comes first can be used to abolish : or delegate to a private party the thing that comes second. Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS only prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, which will be in the possesion of its owner or his agent or bailee, whereas the access control provisions of 17 U.S.C. section 1201(a) refer only to access to the intangible work, not to access to a copy of the work with the authority of the copy's owner. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 10:54:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA10045 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 10:54:40 -0400 Received: from dial97.roadrunner.com (dial97.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.97] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA10042 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 10:54:37 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial97.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA02973 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:56:53 -0600 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:56:52 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000604085651.A2840@localhost> References: <20000601144045.A2829@localhost> <200006041206.IAA19791@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006041206.IAA19791@samsara.law.cwru.edu>; from junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu on Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 08:06:06AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 08:06:06AM -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote: [ ... ] > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS only > prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, which will be in > the possesion of its owner or his agent or bailee, whereas the access > control provisions of 17 U.S.C. section 1201(a) refer only to access > to the intangible work, not to access to a copy of the work with the > authority of the copy's owner. You are correct of course. Thank you for reminding me. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 11:48:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10406 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:48:47 -0400 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 LAA10403 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:48:45 -0400 Received: from travel-net.com (trj65.travel-net.com [207.176.160.65]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20924 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:51:01 -0400 Message-ID: <393A7AA1.8CB6A7E8@travel-net.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:49:53 -0400 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ References: <20000601144045.A2829@localhost> <200006041206.IAA19791@samsara.law.cwru.edu> <20000604085651.A2840@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 Peter is correct, but when I read that paragraph I feel like I'm back in law school (sorry Peter). The concept is unfortunately not easy to explain. I tried to find a simpler way to explain it and failed. I would urge caution in putting complicated concepts in a FAQ or other document unless there is a way to make those concepts readily understood. And when I read it, I am convinced that Peter didnt intend to say "DeCSS only prevents access to the contents". I think he meant to say CSS, but I'm not sure. He might have meant DeCSS facilitates access to the contents or something completely different. OR I could be still asleep and the sentence makes perfectly good sense all along... Paul Fenimore wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 08:06:06AM -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote: > [ ... ] > > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS only > > prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, which will be in > > the possesion of its owner or his agent or bailee, whereas the access > > control provisions of 17 U.S.C. section 1201(a) refer only to access > > to the intangible work, not to access to a copy of the work with the > > authority of the copy's owner. > > You are correct of course. Thank you for reminding me. > > Paul Fenimore -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 14:03:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11236 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 14:03:29 -0400 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 OAA11233 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 14:03:28 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-17.suba.com [206.69.121.209]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA16466 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:04:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:04:20 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bfce4f$4e76a5c0$d17945ce@bugbug> 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: <200006041206.IAA19791@samsara.law.cwru.edu> 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 Peter wrote: > > > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS only > prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, which will be in > the possesion of its owner or his agent or bailee, whereas the access > control provisions of 17 U.S.C. section 1201(a) refer only to access > to the intangible work, not to access to a copy of the work with the > authority of the copy's owner. If you could, I for one could use a little more explanation.. Questions that occur to me are: -How does CSS only prevent access to a copy of the work? It also prevents access to the original work (on the DVD I mean, prior to possible copying) but the licensed player gets the owner around that. -You seem to be saying that whether we call CSS "access control" depends on which copy we attempt to access (read). Could you explain further why this is so, I don't understand it. It exists on the purchased disk and it does prevent access on any copy without something to "descramble" the encryption; does this not qualify? -What is an "intangible work" in relation to access (control)? Please excuse me if I missed something from a previous thread. It seems to me that this comment is more applicable to the term "circumvent". (Also, I assume you meant CSS, not DeCSS, following Dan.) sparky > > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: > http://samsara.law.cwru.edu > NOTE: > junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 14:51:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11539 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 14:51:15 -0400 Received: from dial233.roadrunner.com (dial233.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.233] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11536 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 14:51:13 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial233.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04219 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:53:26 -0600 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:53:25 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000604125324.A4209@localhost> References: <20000601144045.A2829@localhost> <200006041206.IAA19791@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006041206.IAA19791@samsara.law.cwru.edu>; from junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu on Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 08:06:06AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 08:06:06AM -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote: > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS only > prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, which will be in > the possesion of its owner or his agent or bailee, whereas the access > control provisions of 17 U.S.C. section 1201(a) refer only to access > to the intangible work, not to access to a copy of the work with the > authority of the copy's owner. Thanks for the clarification. My difficulty here (at least the part that I know about) is in distinguishing a "work" from the "contents of a copy". As I understand things, both the "work" and the "contents" are information. I see no way to distinguish the information in those two cases, except perhaps that the contents are a particular instance of the work, and the work is the set of all instances. Any help you can offer me in figuring this out is welcome. Paul From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 15:20:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11791 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:20:01 -0400 Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11788 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:20:00 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inigl7.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.66.167]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA23003 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:21:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006041921.PAA23003@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 15:10:14 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Replies to MPAA Motion to Bar Press In-Reply-To: <20000601124914.A1441@localhost> References: <4.1.20000601112909.00ae29d0@pop.law.harvard.edu> <20000601184021.A9617@inka.de> 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 2600/Frankfurt Garbus has provided several responses to MPAA's motion to bar the public and press from depositions: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rpo.htm (139K) Here's a quote from the FGKS opposition brief: "The issues presented have generated worldwide interest across a broad spectrum of people. A generation raised to consider as normal the huge amount of information and counter-information that have and are becoming available at hitherto unknown velocities on the Internet, a generation raised to consider that volume and speed of speech (and in particular, political speech) normal -- including both those who voluntarily removed DeCSS from their websites when they received a 'cease and desist' letter from the MPAA and those who posted DeCSS together with a political statement of support to protest this litigation -- are watching this case to see what the Internet will become. Business and industries interested in the future status of intellectual property in a digital, on-line world, including the entertainment industry, intellectual property lawyers, and thousands of Internet businesses, are watching this case to see the first judicial interpretation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Millions of movie viewers and computer users around the world, including the consumers who buy one million DVDs per week, rent millions more, and buy and rent several million VCDs and video cassettes every week, are directly concerned with the outcome of this case, and can follow it and/or have been following on line." The docs provided: Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motion for a Protective Order Martin Garbus Declaration in Opposition to the Motion for a Protective Order Weil, Gotshal Letter of Support of the Motion for a Protective Order Village Voice Motion to Intervene Jeff Howe (Village Voice) Declaration in Opposition to the Motion for a Protective Order Village Voice Memorandum of Law Newsday Motion to Intervene and Memorandum of Law From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 16:42:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA12285 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 16:42:37 -0400 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA12282 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 16:42:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20000604204335.7117.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 04 Jun 2000 13:43:35 PDT Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:43:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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 Hsieh wrote: > Hi guys, this is my first post here (I am not a law student or > anything like that but I am involved in this case: > http://www.pobox.com/~qed/recess_for_css.html) Welcome. > This brings me to an interesting point. I know that "our side" has > claimed that the only reason deCSS exists is to enable DVD players on > Linux/BeOS/FreeBSD etc., to which the judge has somehow given > this issue earplay by claiming that the deCSS binaries on our > websites are Windows programs. This seems like the > a sticky point that we shouldn't be too caught up on. One thing that bugs me is the blatant inconsistency between "DeCSS = windows program" when reverse engineering was discussed and "DeCSS = any CSS bypassing program" when discussing the scope of the injunction. DeCSS.exe IS a windows program, but css-auth is the linux program, written by LiViD (Derek Fawcus, et. al.) that has transfered programming ideas from and then back to DeCSS.exe . Since DeCSS.exe is proof-of-concept software, it's primary value was to illustrate how the decryption works. To make this easier, it sidesteped some of the filesystem difficulties by using windows (At the time CSS was reverse engineered, linux had no UDF filesystem). That the original version of DeCSS was not production level code is borne out by the fact that it was heavily revised after LiViD examined it and created css-auth. > I guess what I am saying is that there is little point in pushing > this whole "alternative OS thing". Its useful for getting press > and media attention, but I don't think it helps matters in the > court room. I agree. The real desire was to create an "open source" player. Linux and FreeBSD are the dominant open source OS's, so developers gravitate there, but there is no reason you can't write an open source windows DVD player. The point is to break the tying of movie to player and create rival players that don't require licencing. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 16:52:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA12425 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 16:52:30 -0400 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA12422 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 16:52:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20000604205329.24996.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 04 Jun 2000 13:53:29 PDT Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:53:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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 --- "Peter D. Junger" wrote: > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS > only prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, > which will be in the possesion of its owner or his agent or > bailee, whereas the access control provisions of 17 U.S.C. > section 1201(a) refer only to access to the intangible work, not > to access to a copy of the work with the authority of the copy's > owner. This is a very good point that we've had on the backburner lately. 1201(a) does NOT ban all decryption and decryption tools. It only bans those that are used to circumvent *access* control measures. Since Congress didn't provide a definition of 'access', a Court should take the definition that avoids Constitutional questions. By distinguishing between access control and use control, you could easily say that you are not circumventing CSS for 'access' (since you paid First Sale). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 17:21:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12655 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 17:21:58 -0400 Received: from dial249.roadrunner.com (dial249.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.249] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12652 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 17:21:56 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial249.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05159 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:24:17 -0600 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:24:15 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000604152415.A5031@localhost> References: <20000604205329.24996.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000604205329.24996.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 01:53:29PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 01:53:29PM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- "Peter D. Junger" wrote: > > > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS > > only prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, > > which will be in the possesion of its owner or his agent or > > bailee, whereas the access control provisions of 17 U.S.C. > > section 1201(a) refer only to access to the intangible work, not > > to access to a copy of the work with the authority of the copy's > > owner. > > This is a very good point that we've had on the backburner lately. > 1201(a) does NOT ban all decryption and decryption tools. It only bans > those that are used to circumvent *access* control measures. Since > Congress didn't provide a definition of 'access', a Court should take > the definition that avoids Constitutional questions. By distinguishing > between access control and use control, you could easily say that you > are not circumventing CSS for 'access' (since you paid First Sale). Access is not defined by the statute, but it has an established meaning in infringement cases. Courts accept either proof of copying, or as an alternative proof of access and substantial similarity of the works in question as the standard of proof to establish infringement. This is discussed in Nimmer, where out of three definitions of access, Nimmer endorses, roughly speaking, the opportunity to see, hear or view. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 17:46:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12868 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 17:46:19 -0400 Received: from dial96.roadrunner.com (sf-du96.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.96]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12865 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 17:46:17 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial96.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05417 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:48:38 -0600 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:48:36 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000604154836.A5249@localhost> References: <20000604205329.24996.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> <20000604152415.A5031@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000604152415.A5031@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 03:24:15PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 03:24:15PM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > This is discussed in Nimmer, where out of three definitions of access, > Nimmer endorses, roughly speaking, the opportunity to see, hear or view. Nimmer on Copyright §13.02[A] at 13-16 et seq. "Some courts have defined access as the actual viewing and knowledge of plaintiff's work by the person who composed defendant's work. [supra 1: Schwarz v. Universal Pictures Co., 85 F. Supp. 270 (S.D. Cal. 1945); Christie v. Harris, 47 F. Supp. 39 (S.D.N.Y. 1942), aff'd 154 F.2d 827 (2d Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 734 (1946); ... ] It is submitted that this definition is erroneous in that it ignores the underlying policy considerations that permit proof of access (and substantial similarity) as substitutes for direct proof of copying. [supra 2: See §13.01[B] supra.] [ ... ] It would seem clearer and more just in terms of the plaintiff's burden of proof [surpa 5: ... ] to regard a reasonable opportunity to view as access in itself and not merely as creating an inference of access. [surpa 6: This definition of access was expressly adopted in Robert R. Jones Assosc., Inc., v. Nino Homes, 858 F.2d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1988) (Treatise cited); Autoskill, Inc. v. National Educ. Support Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476, 1490 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 916 (1993)(Treatise cited); ... Blazon, Inc. v. DLuxe Game Corp., 268 F. Supp. 416 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)(Treatise quoted); ... Stratchborneo v. Arc Music Corp., 357 F. Supp. 1393 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); Arrow Novelty Co. v. Enco Nat'l Corp., 393 F. Supp. 157 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)(Treatise cited), aff'd mem. 515 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1975).] Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 19:46:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA13549 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:46:00 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.186.16]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA13546 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:45:59 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20741; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:46:57 -0400 Message-Id: <200006042346.TAA20741@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 04 Jun 2000 13:04:20 CDT." <000001bfce4f$4e76a5c0$d17945ce@bugbug> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 19:46:27 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "sparky" writes: : : Peter wrote: : > : > : > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS only : > prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, which will be in : > the possesion of its owner or his agent or bailee, whereas the access : > control provisions of 17 U.S.C. section 1201(a) refer only to access : > to the intangible work, not to access to a copy of the work with the : > authority of the copy's owner. : : If you could, I for one could use a little more explanation.. Questions that : occur to me are: : : -How does CSS only prevent access to a copy of the work? It also prevents : access to the original work (on the DVD I mean, prior to possible copying) : but the licensed player gets the owner around that. : -You seem to be saying that whether we call CSS "access control" depends on : which copy we attempt to access (read). Could you explain further why this : is so, I don't understand it. It exists on the purchased disk and it does : prevent access on any copy without something to "descramble" the encryption; : does this not qualify? : -What is an "intangible work" in relation to access (control)? Please excuse : me if I missed something from a previous thread. : : It seems to me that this comment is more applicable to the term : "circumvent". (Also, I assume you meant CSS, not DeCSS, following Dan.) The ``work'' is what it protected by copyright; a ``copy'' is a tangible object in which the work is ``fixed''. These terms are defined in the copyright act. If you are going to argue that the anti-circumvention provisions of Section 1201(a) do not apply to getting access to copies that you own, such as your DVD collection, then it doesn't hurt to couch the argument in the terminology of the copyright act, at least not when yo are addressing the argument to a court. You were right, of course, that I meant CSS, not DeCSS. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 20:02:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA13778 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:02:00 -0400 Received: from mercury.cc.oberlin.edu (mercury.cc.oberlin.edu [132.162.1.220]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA13775 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:01:59 -0400 Received: from localhost by oberlin.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #38929) with SMTP id <0FVN00D01MTTHB@oberlin.edu> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 20:03:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Kornblum Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: 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 Hello, I am a new member of this list so forgive me if this point has been brought up before. In reading the new MPAA FAQ, I noticed several places where they claim piracy has wiped out or will wipe out their legitimate market. For example, in response to the question, "Why is piracy such a major concern?" They replied: Unabated, piracy can destroy the legitimate marketplace for consumers and stop the development and distribution of new works. In some areas of the world, video pirates have driven legitimate video merchants out of business, leaving consumers with no choice but to buy inferior pirated versions of motion pictures. Later on, in the last question, which deals with region encoding, they say: Without such protections, motion picture theatrical distributors and exhibitors abroad could lose a significant portion of their audiences to advance DVD viewing. The lost theatrical revenues could result in theater closures, lost jobs, depriving consumers throughout the world from seeing motion pictures on the big screen. In both cases, it sounds like they are more interested in protecting their monopolies than in protecting consumer choice. If legitimate video merchants did indeed go out of business, it would seem to show that the consumers did not want to pay high prices and would be satisfied with lower quality pirated copies at a lower price. This seems to be the free market at work and the fact is if the MPAA had filled the low price niche itself piracy would have been less of a problem. Similary, if consumers would be satisfied watching DVD's in their homes and would skip going to the theatre, why do we need to prevent them from doing so in the name allowing them to see movies on the big screen? If they want to see them on the big screen they will. Perhaps the open law FAQ should mention the monopolistic implications of these MPAA responses? I don't know if it would fit into the "our response to their response" format but it seems like an important issue to me. Regards, Mark Kornblum From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 20:19:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA13956 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:19:23 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.186.16]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA13953 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:19:22 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20866; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:20:30 -0400 Message-Id: <200006050020.UAA20866@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 04 Jun 2000 12:53:25 MDT." <20000604125324.A4209@localhost> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 20:20:30 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: : On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 08:06:06AM -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote: : > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS only : > prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, which will be in : > the possesion of its owner or his agent or bailee, whereas the access : > control provisions of 17 U.S.C. section 1201(a) refer only to access : > to the intangible work, not to access to a copy of the work with the : > authority of the copy's owner. : : Thanks for the clarification. : : My difficulty here (at least the part that I know about) is in : distinguishing a "work" from the "contents of a copy". : : As I understand things, both the "work" and the "contents" are information. : I see no way to distinguish the information in those two cases, except : perhaps that the contents are a particular instance of the work, and : the work is the set of all instances. The work is fixed in the copy, and is thus the information contained in the copy. But if the copy has been sold, then the owner of the copy, and his friends and relations, have the authority of the copyright owner under the first sale docrtine to access the copy and read, or view, or listen to---and even to make fair-use copies of---the work. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 20:34:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14167 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:34:28 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.186.16]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14164 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:34:27 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20943; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:35:26 -0400 Message-Id: <200006050035.UAA20943@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 04 Jun 2000 15:24:15 MDT." <20000604152415.A5031@localhost> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 20:34:56 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: : On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 01:53:29PM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: : > : > --- "Peter D. Junger" wrote: : > : > > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS : > > only prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, : > > which will be in the possesion of its owner or his agent or : > > bailee, whereas the access control provisions of 17 U.S.C. : > > section 1201(a) refer only to access to the intangible work, not : > > to access to a copy of the work with the authority of the copy's : > > owner. : > : > This is a very good point that we've had on the backburner lately. : > 1201(a) does NOT ban all decryption and decryption tools. It only bans : > those that are used to circumvent *access* control measures. Since : > Congress didn't provide a definition of 'access', a Court should take : > the definition that avoids Constitutional questions. By distinguishing : > between access control and use control, you could easily say that you : > are not circumventing CSS for 'access' (since you paid First Sale). : : Access is not defined by the statute, but it has an established meaning : in infringement cases. Courts accept either proof of copying, or as : an alternative proof of access and substantial similarity of the works : in question as the standard of proof to establish infringement. : : This is discussed in Nimmer, where out of three definitions of access, : Nimmer endorses, roughly speaking, the opportunity to see, hear or view. But 1201(a) does not refer to ``access'' as such, it---very carefully I submit---refers to ``access to a work.'' The type of access that you are discussing almost always invloved showing that the alleged copyright violator had acess to a _copyy_. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 20:56:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14510 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:56:41 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14507 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:56:40 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12ylDW-0004sK-00; Sun, 04 Jun 2000 17:58:10 -0700 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 17:58:10 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000604175810.F2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Mark.Kornblum@oberlin.edu on Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 08:03:29PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mark Kornblum writes: > In both cases, it sounds like they are more interested in protecting > their monopolies than in protecting consumer choice. If legitimate video > merchants did indeed go out of business, it would seem to show that the > consumers did not want to pay high prices and would be satisfied with > lower quality pirated copies at a lower price. This seems to be the free > market at work and the fact is if the MPAA had filled the low price niche > itself piracy would have been less of a problem. Similary, if consumers > would be satisfied watching DVD's in their homes and would skip going to > the theatre, why do we need to prevent them from doing so in the name > allowing them to see movies on the big screen? If they want to see them > on the big screen they will. The argument is that copyright exists to avoid this situation, which is considered a market failure by some people. Copyright _is_ a form of interference in the free market, because of some people's disapproval of the presumed outcome of a free market in information products. It is a government-granted monopoly power. Of course, copyright holders don't necessarily say that -- they say they "own" the information or "have a right to" the information or want to prevent people from "stealing" the information. The legally allowed uses of the monopoly power of copyright are limited in some ways by antitrust law (which I think of as a strange paradox, but legal scholars seem to keep saying is perfectly reasonable and intuitive). There is the Paramount case, which people have talked about here as limiting what copyright holders may and may not do with their copyrights under antitrust law (and there are similar situations with patents). But proving antitrust violations is a lot harder than just noticing the existence of a monopoly. For example, I have a legal monopoly on the sale of the content of this message. Nobody else is allowed to compete with me in selling copies of this message! But I'm probably not violating antitrust laws if I try to enforce that. The conflict between intellectual property and antitrust is something which has come up in the Microsoft antitrust trial. Many libertarians have complained that the government created Microsoft's monopoly in the first place, by enforcing Microsoft's copyrights and allowing it to write all sorts of anti-competitive copyright-based software licenses. The government is fairly indignant about this charge, arguing that different types of regulations are appropriate in different circumstances, and that it's not inherently inconsistent for the government to be able to exercise regulatory powers which have opposite effects, so long as each one is used in its appropriate context. Some more moderate critics say that's true, but that, in real life, copyright is often used inappropriately, so that the public doesn't necessarily benefit from it. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html (Some of the material there is out of date, but it's interesting. Yeah, I know it's funny that I'm calling Richard Stallman a more moderate critic, but that's because here he concedes that maybe copyright should exist -- only when it's generally in the best interest of the public.) -- 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 Jun 4 21:12:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA14887 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 21:12:06 -0400 Received: from dial151.roadrunner.com (sf-du151.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.151]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA14884 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 21:12:03 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial151.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06123 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:14:27 -0600 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:14:26 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000604191426.B5952@localhost> References: <20000604152415.A5031@localhost> <200006050035.UAA20943@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006050035.UAA20943@samsara.law.cwru.edu>; from junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu on Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 08:34:56PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 08:34:56PM -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > : On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 01:53:29PM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > : > > : > --- "Peter D. Junger" wrote: > : > > : > > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. Remember that DeCSS > : > > only prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, > : > > which will be in the possesion of its owner or his agent or > : > > bailee, whereas the access control provisions of 17 U.S.C. > : > > section 1201(a) refer only to access to the intangible work, not > : > > to access to a copy of the work with the authority of the copy's > : > > owner. > : > > : > This is a very good point that we've had on the backburner lately. > : > 1201(a) does NOT ban all decryption and decryption tools. It only bans > : > those that are used to circumvent *access* control measures. Since > : > Congress didn't provide a definition of 'access', a Court should take > : > the definition that avoids Constitutional questions. By distinguishing > : > between access control and use control, you could easily say that you > : > are not circumventing CSS for 'access' (since you paid First Sale). > : > : Access is not defined by the statute, but it has an established meaning > : in infringement cases. Courts accept either proof of copying, or as > : an alternative proof of access and substantial similarity of the works > : in question as the standard of proof to establish infringement. > : > : This is discussed in Nimmer, where out of three definitions of access, > : Nimmer endorses, roughly speaking, the opportunity to see, hear or view. > > But 1201(a) does not refer to ``access'' as such, it---very carefully > I submit---refers to ``access to a work.'' The type of access that > you are discussing almost always invloved showing that the alleged > copyright violator had acess to a _copyy_. I submit that prior to the use of encryption, there wasn't any point to distinguishing the copy from the work for the purpose of establishing access in an infringement case. Only with the advent of data scrambling is it important to distinguish the work from the copy in the context of infringement. What would happen in an infringement trial where the D had access to a scrambled copy of the work, but no access to the unscrambled work? Would that still allow the court to proceed to the stage of examining for substantial similarity? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 4 22:53:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA15537 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 22:53:30 -0400 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 WAA15534 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 22:53:29 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA15081 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 22:54:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006050254.WAA15081@gwillbe.circ.gwu.edu> X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Sun, 4 Jun 00 22:58:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 22:58:12 -0500 From: Douglas Hudson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00103035 Subject: [dvd-discuss] Access 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 Access, as a term, is what it appears to be. The ability to view or use a work. Then there is "access to a work" as in 1201(a). It uses the language "access to a work protected under this title." This title is Title 17, the Copyright Act. So we ask, is this (access to a work) protected under the Copyright Act ...in other words types of access covered by Copyright law, access to exclusive rights in copyright. Compare: (access) to a (work protected under the Copyright Act) ...any access control on a Copyrighted work. Even if its the second interpretation, does any access control even include the non-copyrightable "work" elements under 102(b)? That, I believe, is where 1201(b) comes in. This, IMHO, is where the issue of what is "access" should focus. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 02:28:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA17150 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:28:40 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA17147 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:28:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e556U7409469 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:30:07 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:30:06 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Attacking Commerce Clause foundation for Paracopyright In-Reply-To: <20000602114452.A1341@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 Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: >Non-copyright use (e.g. private viewing from an authorized after first sale) >has no economic impact on the copyright owner, and is even further from >the commerce clause than fair use. So how about if something passed under the Economic Clause actually makes for a new kind of economic activity? I.e. monopolizes access? A perverse sort of logic would indicate that this is a matter of great importance to interstate commerce... Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 02:51:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA17319 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:51:05 -0400 Received: from dial239.roadrunner.com (dial239.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.239] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA17316 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:51:03 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial239.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA08636 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 00:53:31 -0600 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 00:53:30 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Attacking Commerce Clause foundation for Paracopyright Message-ID: <20000605005330.A8539@localhost> References: <20000602114452.A1341@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi on Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 09:30:06AM +0300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 09:30:06AM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > >Non-copyright use (e.g. private viewing from an authorized after first sale) > >has no economic impact on the copyright owner, and is even further from > >the commerce clause than fair use. > > So how about if something passed under the Economic Clause actually makes > for a new kind of economic activity? I.e. monopolizes access? A perverse > sort of logic would indicate that this is a matter of great importance to > interstate commerce... The issue then becomes if the new activity stomps on the First Amendment or on limitations in the Copyright Clause (possibly, "promote progress of the useful arts and science"). Where did that Learned Hand quote go? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 03:08:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA17530 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:08:26 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA17527 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:08:25 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA20742 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:09:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:09:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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, 4 Jun 2000, Mark Kornblum wrote: snip > Unabated, piracy can destroy the legitimate marketplace for consumers and > stop the development and distribution of new works. In some areas of the > world, video pirates have driven legitimate video merchants out of > business, leaving consumers with no choice but to buy inferior pirated > versions of motion pictures. snip > In both cases, it sounds like they are more interested in protecting > their monopolies than in protecting consumer choice. If legitimate video > merchants did indeed go out of business, it would seem to show that the > consumers did not want to pay high prices and would be satisfied with > lower quality pirated copies at a lower price. This seems to be the free > market at work and the fact is if the MPAA had filled the low price niche > itself piracy would have been less of a problem. Similary, if consumers > would be satisfied watching DVD's in their homes and would skip going to > the theatre, why do we need to prevent them from doing so in the name > allowing them to see movies on the big screen? If they want to see them > on the big screen they will. The MPAA members do have the perogative to set their prices and not do business in the niche that illegal copies exist in (low price, fast availability) They aren't helping the issue any, but they are not required to stamp out piracy by radically discounting their films. There are limits to this of course, but in general I don't think that their actions justify antitrust investigations wrt their pricing. (then again look at what just happened to the Big 5 in music) Although there are substantial differences between property ownership and copyrights, think of how many people would like to buy Ferrari's that 'fell off the truck' and only cost $500. Stolen cars may cost very little but we do not consider it anticompetitive for cars to be priced higher unless there are other circumstances as well, e.g. price fixing. So consumer choice between copies redistributed with the consent of the copyright holder and copies w/o that consent is probably not an argument that we're going to make much progress with. This doesn't preclude the MPAA members from acting anti-competitively in other matters though. Region controls and CSS licensing are likely candidates for that. OTOH What is somewhat amusing is that the MPAA FAQ is considering copyright to have some kind of moral quality, IMHO. But copyright law is pretty new, differs from country to country and best yet does not exist in some countries at all (Taiwan being the most famous). I suppose that while the 'pirates' there do impact the MPAA-approved redistributors quite a lot, they are all equally legitimate ;) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 03:27:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA17713 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:27:49 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA17710 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:27:47 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12yrK1-0005Wq-00; Mon, 05 Jun 2000 00:29:17 -0700 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 00:29:17 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000605002917.I2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from cpt@gryphon.auspice.net on Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 03:09:25AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Joshua Stratton writes: > OTOH What is somewhat amusing is that the MPAA FAQ is considering > copyright to have some kind of moral quality, IMHO. But copyright law is > pretty new, differs from country to country and best yet does not exist in > some countries at all (Taiwan being the most famous). I suppose that while > the 'pirates' there do impact the MPAA-approved redistributors quite a > lot, they are all equally legitimate ;) That doesn't seem to be correct: http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/yb97/html/ch1606t.htm U.S. trade sanctions can have a big impact on foreign governments. -- 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 Jun 5 03:42:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA17867 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:42:51 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA17864 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:42:49 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12yrYa-0005Yq-00; Mon, 05 Jun 2000 00:44:20 -0700 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 00:44:20 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000605004420.J2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from cpt@gryphon.auspice.net on Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 03:09:25AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Joshua Stratton writes: > Taiwan I also found this: The "Copyright Publicity Train" was designed to reinforce campaign on campus. A series of live, call-in copyright programs were launched, with co-sponsors being the Public Radio System and the Chinese Satellite TV. The "Copyright Lecture" program was broadcasted over local cable TV channels in order to expand the publicity coverage. The "National Copyright Caricature Contest" was aimed at school students and personnel outside campus, with the China Times being the co-sponsor. The "Copyright Week" program covered a series of activities featured with specific subjects, including an island-wide "Copyright Mass-endorsement Campaign" launched in northern, central, and southern Taiwan. The series was concluded by the "Copyright Exhibition and Carnival". The "Copyright Night" party closed the FY1996 Copyright Law publicity program. http://www.moi.gov.tw/W3/xmoi1gg.htm This sounds funny to us in the U.S., but propaganda for copyright over here happens on a similar scale. (That page notes that "Our country is not a member of any international copyright convention" -- which might be what you were thinking of. But it says that Taiwan does have domestic copyright laws and bilateral copyright treaties.) -- 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 Jun 5 03:44:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA17918 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:44:24 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA17915 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:44:23 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA20811 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:45:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:45:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <20000605002917.I2589@zork.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 Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Joshua Stratton writes: > > > OTOH What is somewhat amusing is that the MPAA FAQ is considering > > copyright to have some kind of moral quality, IMHO. But copyright law is > > pretty new, differs from country to country and best yet does not exist in > > some countries at all (Taiwan being the most famous). I suppose that while > > the 'pirates' there do impact the MPAA-approved redistributors quite a > > lot, they are all equally legitimate ;) > > That doesn't seem to be correct: > > http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/yb97/html/ch1606t.htm > > U.S. trade sanctions can have a big impact on foreign governments. I'm suprised that it's finally been changed. Certainly I still see a significant amount of copied works coming out of Taiwan. (one of my hobbies is animation) So I'm not entirely certain that it's having much of an effect. Trade sanctions aside, there is still the argument that pirates are only illegitimate where their actions are illegal. Moral justification of copyright - particularly the ever-expanding copyright that the MPAA among others favor - still strikes me as an attempt to cloud the issue. But we're getting away from useful discussions, when we get into the fundemental reasons for copyright in the absence of a specific application of them. (And Lord knows our merry gang is good at getting off topic ;) Let's get back on track, shall we? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 05:15:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA19506 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 05:15:06 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA19503 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 05:15:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e559GVD09733 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:16:32 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:16:30 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <20000604125324.A4209@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 Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: >As I understand things, both the "work" and the "contents" are information. The work is the actual information, the contents are one given instance we get by coding/representing the information on a tangible medium. As I see it, this is one more way of putting the idea/expression dichotomy into action. Granted, it's just about impossible to keep the idea in mind in the heat of a debate. >I see no way to distinguish the information in those two cases, except >perhaps that the contents are a particular instance of the work, and >the work is the set of all instances. Precisely. The in programming parlance the intangible (this is why copyrights are IP in the first place) works constitute entire classes of which one particular tangible representations are instances. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 08:40:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA20758 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 08:40:23 -0400 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 IAA20755 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 08:40:22 -0400 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 IAA22592 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 08:41:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20000604085132.01feed10@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 08:48:30 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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 This looks like a great start to countering the FUD the MPAA likes to spread. Plus, as defendants are fighting the MPAA members' motion for a protective order to keep the press out, it helps to show how they have been courting publicity where they think it helps their side. If you'd like to host this document on the Openlaw site, just let me know. I've currently linked it from the resources page --Wendy At 11:48 PM 6/3/00 -0500, Tim Neu wrote: > >Anyone who would like to work on the MPAA FAQ, I have updated (at least as >much as I have time to do right now) with peoples suggestions. > >There is a "to do" section on the top. (if I have missed anything - or if >you think something else should be changed, let me know). > >http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >______ _ __ "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 >/ <_/ / / < / (_; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:02:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20000605160345.9493.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 05 Jun 2000 09:03:45 PDT Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:03:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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 --- "Peter D. Junger" wrote: > The work is fixed in the copy, and is thus the information contained > in the copy. But if the copy has been sold, then the owner of > the copy, and his friends and relations, have the authority of > the copyright owner under the first sale docrtine to access the > copy and read, or view, or listen to---and even to make fair-use > copies of---the work. The major annoyance / loophole to this argument is the "it's not a sale, it's a licence" argument. I'm not sure if this smoke-and-mirrors applies to DVD media, but it definitely applies to player software. Does anyone know if DVD's claim only to provide a licence? Even if they do, however, the copyright notice "for home viewing only" would seem to abandon once and for all, any attempt to retain access rights. This is another argument we've had on the back-burner for a while. To restate it: Has the MPAA done anything to alert the consumer that the copyright holder is attempting to retain the authority to access the DVD unless a licenced player is used, or is this an ex post facto assertion? This seems like it might be a good choice for a motion for summary judgement. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 13:46:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA24353 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:46:41 -0400 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 NAA24350 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:46:40 -0400 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 NAA00578 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:48:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000605131404.02d802a0@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:25:02 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: [dvd-discuss] Openlaw amicus accepted 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 The court has now granted our motion for leave to file our brief amicus curiae (submitted by Berkman Center fellow Meg Smith). Kaplan has also accepted amicus briefs from Pam Samuelson (Berkeley IP prof) and Karen Coyle (University of California librarian), both of which I imagine support 2600. >Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:01:20 -0400 (EDT) >From: sdny_webadmin@ce2.uscourts.gov (D02NYSC) > >Ref No: 00-05759 >Date: 06/05/2000 >Office: NY Southern Dist >Case: 00cv00277 Universal City, et al. v. Reimerdes >Judge: Lewis A. Kaplan >Ruling: Order > >Text: The motions of Karen Coyle, Paula Samuelson and Margaret E. Smith >for leave to file briefs amicus curiae are granted. >--------------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 15:35:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA26660 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:35:50 -0400 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 PAA26657 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:35:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA24587 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:37:20 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:37:18 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000604085132.01feed10@law.harvard.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, 5 Jun 2000, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > This looks like a great start to countering the FUD the MPAA likes to > spread. Plus, as defendants are fighting the MPAA members' motion for a > protective order to keep the press out, it helps to show how they have been > courting publicity where they think it helps their side. > > If you'd like to host this document on the Openlaw site, just let me know. > I've currently linked it from the resources page > > > --Wendy Tim, I'm gonna barrage you (the list) with stuff tonight. Or as least as much as I can cook up. :) Just a heads up. sparky > > At 11:48 PM 6/3/00 -0500, Tim Neu wrote: > > > >Anyone who would like to work on the MPAA FAQ, I have updated (at least as > >much as I have time to do right now) with peoples suggestions. > > > >There is a "to do" section on the top. (if I have missed anything - or if > >you think something else should be changed, let me know). > > > >http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >______ _ __ "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 > >/ <_/ / / < / (_ > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 16:15:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA27926 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:15:29 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA27923 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:15:28 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:20:07 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D86@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:19:57 -0400 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 Once, I worked for a software company that got a significant amount of revenue from non-US sales. The large amount of international sales affected the company and products in several ways (That is a note for another forum). The issue of piracy was often discussed. Unfortunately, none but the biggest companies have resources that allow the effect of piracy to be measured or tracked. By anecdote, we knew that our software was heavily pirated in some countries. What became a point of debate was the actual effect on sales. For instance, if a magazine sells 10,000 copies for $1 a copy and has 2 readers per copy, has the publisher lost $10,000? It so happens if perfect copies are made at the same rate as extra readers, then you get a series that converges on a multiplier. The number of average copies made increases the multiplier, the amount of copies legally used decreases it. So when the MPAA hints that the effect of home duplication of movies results in unbounded growth of the number of copies, they are incorrect. Okay, back to the software company. As a teaser, I'll relate an actual story. One of our salespeople was talking to an academic institution about a site license. In a visit to the university, she found that a US professor had carried copies of the software overseas and installed it in one of their computer labs. The professor who had taken the US site licensed copy claimed that it was okay because the overseas university could not afford a legitimate license. Now, our salesperson was all in favor of more draconian measures to prevent piracy; such situations, she thought, directly cut into her commission. I had a slightly different take -- I thought sending a calm letter to the dean of the US university, with the details of the story, would probably provide some discouragement. In all the experience of handling piracy, I would say that there are two truisms: 1) Reevaluate your business model in each country in light of technology, culture, and trends. 2) The law is not your first resort, the law is your last resort. Use piracy incidents as a feedback to improve your model. In the case of the story above, simply letting the academic community know that we had special prices for developing countries, or developing price plans that allowed for collaboration among researchers, could have solved this issue. There are always people who believe that software is overpriced, but there is a huge amount of labor and risk involved. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Kornblum [mailto:Mark.Kornblum@oberlin.edu] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 8:03 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In both cases, it sounds like they are more interested in protecting their monopolies than in protecting consumer choice. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 21:45:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA31298 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:45:04 -0400 Received: from dial202.roadrunner.com (sf-du202.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.202]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA31295 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:45:01 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial202.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA03574 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 19:47:08 -0600 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 19:47:07 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Yet another hyperlinking case Message-ID: <20000605194706.A3438@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I don't remember seeing this on dvd-discuss, . This is a suit by MP3board.com against the RIAA. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 22:42:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA31717 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:42:11 -0400 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 WAA31713 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:42:09 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12z9JI-0002qn-00 for ; Mon, 05 Jun 2000 21:41:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:41:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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 All requested edits that I have as of today _should_ be merged now. (although I hear there is still much yet to come!) As requested, I have created two separate responses for each of the MPAA's questions: OpenLaw's answer to the question: and OpenLaw's answer to the MPAA: This should let us address both the MPAA's questions and answers - but it also requires all responses to be changed appropriately. There is still much to do if anyone is bored! :-) http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html (also linked from the OpenLaw DVD resources page) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:59:44 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial157.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04629 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:02:00 -0600 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:01:59 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Message-ID: <20000605210159.A4539@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 09:41:44PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu (3) Force the playing, or not playing of certain sections of the DVD's video content up activiation of the player with a given DVD disc in it (for example, commercials at the start of the DVD.) As far as is known, the DVD-CCA licences the use of a CSS decryptor to developer only if they agree to implement (2) and (3) in a way they describe, and are under arbitrary control of (1) at the descrition of the DVD-CCA by virtue of what decryption keys are disclosed to the developer. The first sentence makes it sound as though the CSS might require playing commericals, when, as noted in the following text, it is the CSS license that compels this behavior. "CSS is just an encryption layer" --> "CSS is just a data scrambling layer" "unenshroud" --> "descramble" Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 23:00:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA31877 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:00:05 -0400 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 XAA31874 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:00:03 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12z9aa-0003Ku-00 for ; Mon, 05 Jun 2000 21:59:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:59:36 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <000001bfce4f$4e76a5c0$d17945ce@bugbug> 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 Aargh.... In the 50 or so messages related to this FAQ, it seems I may have missed a few additions. As I have been warned of a large quantity of new information from sparky, I will wait until I receive his edits and then make sure that all other suggested edits have been merged... (if sparky hasn't merged them already). Sorry! Didn't mean to miss anybody! I'll make sure it all gets there. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:15:28 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-31.suba.com [206.69.121.223]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA12540 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:16:59 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:16:25 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bfcf65$98b1d120$df7945ce@bugbug> 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: 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 Tim wrote: > > Aargh.... > > In the 50 or so messages related to this FAQ, it seems I may have missed a > few additions. > > As I have been warned of a large quantity of new information from > sparky, I will wait until I receive his edits and then make sure that all > other suggested edits have been merged... (if sparky hasn't merged them > already). > > Sorry! Didn't mean to miss anybody! > > I'll make sure it all gets there. Don't fret, I'm actually behind where I thought I would be, not the barrage yet, but working on it, I'll get something going tonight. I think I am more able to do the response to the MPAA parts, feel like flexing my dramatic writing muscle (oh, it's a dramatic wrist, believe you me).. I do have one suggestion: where "answers to the MPAA's question" would dupe effort put into the CSS FAQ, I strongly urge we NOT answer it again, but just link, with maybe a brief summary. The point of this response should not be to reiterate all the facts, but IMO is more to pop the MPAA's propaganda. REferences to factual explanations are necessary, but we should refer where we can, not reiterate. We want regular joes and janes to read this and read that the MPAA is feeding them a load of crap. sparky > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=-=-=-=- > ______ _ __ "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 > / <_/ / / < / (_ http://www.visi.com/~tneu -- > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 23:18:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA32276 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:18:23 -0400 Received: from dial149.roadrunner.com (sf-du149.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.149]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA32273 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:18:21 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial149.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04798 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:20:36 -0600 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:20:35 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000605212034.A4711@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 09:41:44PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Q.4: [ ... ] "DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house." "The MPAA attempts to make DeCSS users sound like murderers, theives, and villians. However, for this analogy to be factual, the house you would be breaking into would be your own." In a Salon interview Mark Litvack brought child pornography into the discussion, but if this document is limited to debunking the MPAA FAQ I think one might want to restrict replies narrowly to the issues at hand. Thieves and villians yes, but not murders. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 5 23:48:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA32401 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:48:36 -0400 Received: from dial105.roadrunner.com (sf-du105.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.105]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA32398 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:48:33 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial105.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04964 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:50:49 -0600 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:50:48 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.7 Message-ID: <20000605215048.A4875@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 09:41:44PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This isn't perfect. Q.7 OpenLaw's Answer to the question: One of the critical points in this case is whether the owner of a legally purchased DVD has a right to play it. When the MPAA say, "the DMCA were never intended to enable anyone to circumvent technical protection measures" they are begging the question. If no one can build their own CSS-enabled DVD player without the permission of the studios or their cut-out (the DVDCCA), your "right" to watch the movie you bought is contingent on using a licensed player. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 00:14:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA32674 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:14:11 -0400 Received: from bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu (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 AAA32671 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:14:10 -0400 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA17299 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:15:48 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu: sam owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:15:48 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-Reply-To: <20000605212034.A4711@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, 5 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > Q.4: > [ ... ] > "DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house." > > "The MPAA attempts to make DeCSS users sound like murderers, theives, > and villians. However, for this analogy to be factual, the house you > would be breaking into would be your own." > How about adding : "If you had bought your house from the MPAA, this would be like preventing you from returning home between 9AM and 5PM, and then calling you a theif when you snuck back into your own house during 'unapproved' hours." sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 00:45:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA00447 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:45:58 -0400 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 AAA00444 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:45:57 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-31.suba.com [206.69.121.223]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA14965 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:47:29 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:46:53 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bfcf72$3c90b0c0$df7945ce@bugbug> 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: 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 Hey, everyone seems to be doing #4 tonight. Sorry about the false alarm Tim, but these questions are tough. Here's a full writeup of 4. Have at it all. *** <4> Q. What is DeCSS and how does it work? -------------------------------------- MPAA's A: --------- In late 1999, a small group of hackers in Europe worked to descramble the CSS encryption system for DVDs and created an unauthorized software utility commonly referred to as DeCSS. A computer that has the DeCSS utility can use it to break the CSS code on DVDs making it possible for motion pictures in DVD format to be decrypted and illegally copied onto a computer's hard drive for further distribution over the internet or otherwise, in perfect, digital format. DeCSS is akin to the tool that breaks the lock on your house. draft Openlaw A: ---------------- This answer is essentially propaganda. For a factual description of how DeCSS works, see [links]. How does DeCSS work according to the MPAA? It works by allowing copying "for further distribution" - as though what happened to the copy later were intrinsically related to the making of the copy. This entire answer is based on an assumption - or, less an assumption than an agenda. That agenda is to make DeCSS seem as illegal as possible, to make it seem that it has only illegal uses. Not only does DeCSS not have only illegal uses, it has substantial legal uses, as a reverse engineering tool for example; its use in this regard has been documented: DeCSS has contributed to the creation of a Linux DVD player by the LiViD open source group (LiViD stands for Linux Video and DVD)[link]. This is not only a fact, it is a fact the MPAA wants to persuade everyone to ignore. Not everyone who has used DeCSS is a thief, as the MPAA would like you to believe. The creators of the LiViD DVD player are not thieves; but they used it. The makers of DeCSS are not thieves; one of them has stated that he wished DeCSS to be used for reverse engineering projects to create DVD players for operating systems not yet supporting DVD. But in the MPAA's world, presumably all these people are guilty by association with DeCSS. Interestingly, by the standard of the MPAA's "tool that breaks the lock on your house" metaphor, not only is a use of DeCSS not an act of theft, it can only be a completely legal act; that is because DeCSS is useable only on DVDs which you have purchased and which you therefore own - in other words, it is like a tool that you use to break the lock on the house you purchased from the MPAA when you are locked out and the MPAA won't tell you where they hid the key. That the MPAA considers DeCSS a criminal tool indicates that they really mean by that metaphor is "a tool which breaks the lock on *our* house"; the MPAA are trying to sell you a house, and still control it. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of sam th > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 11:16 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > Q.4: > > [ ... ] > > "DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house." > > > > "The MPAA attempts to make DeCSS users sound like murderers, theives, > > and villians. However, for this analogy to be factual, the > house you > > would be breaking into would be your own." > > > > How about adding : > > "If you had bought your house from the MPAA, this would be like preventing > you from returning home between 9AM and 5PM, and then calling you a theif > when you snuck back into your own house during 'unapproved' hours." > > sam th > sam@uchicago.edu > http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 01:32:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA00811 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:32:02 -0400 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 BAA00808 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:32:00 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-31.suba.com [206.69.121.223]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id AAA16122 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:33:31 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ - #7 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:32:55 -0500 Message-ID: <000501bfcf78$aabcfa80$df7945ce@bugbug> 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: 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 Another long one. Paul and I have been looking at the same questions (jinx!). It's gotten late and so this is a lot more sarcastic than I expect we want, but I decided screw it, if we don't want it, you'll all say so. Personally I think sarcasm could be to the point. #7 in particular asks for it. Paul, I go into access for a paragraph, but my thinking on it isn't clear and as you seem to read about it day and night :) maybe you'd like to take a look at it. sparky ***** <7> Q. -- Doesn't the DMCA allow reverse engineering for compatibility, for example to allow playing of a DVD on a Linux operating system-driven personal computer? MPAA's A: --------- The DMCA does allow reverse engineering. However, the reverse engineering provisions in the DMCA were never intended to enable anyone to circumvent technical protection measures (TPMs) for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to or making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. The DMCA does allow a lawful user of a computer program to circumvent TPMs to ensure that the program can work with other programs (interoperability); and, with strict limitations, the research may be shared with others, as long as it does not infringe the copyright in the original or a related work. However, reverse engineering is not permissible if there is a readily vailable commercial alternative for that purpose. In this case, there exist MANY commercially available DVD players. draft Openlaw answer: --------------------- The only correct statement in this answer about the reverse engineering exemption in the DMCA is the first sentence. Thereafter the writer of the MPAA FAQ exercised what is apparently a quite fanciful imagination. We at Openlaw wish we had imaginations half as fanciful as the one responsible for this answer, as we believe it would help us to assist the defense. But alas, we are slow, moribund, earthbound, truthful persons. The DMCA allows reverse engineering; the pertinent clause is 1201(f)[link]. This clause allows reverse engineering for the purpose of establishing interoperability between computer programs; one of the interoperating programs must be independently created, according to the DMCA; and, RE is permitted as long as it does not otherwise constitute infringement of copyright. The MPAA would like us to understand this matter to stand on authority to *access* - that is to view, read, or otherwise use a work - and in particular, their first paragraph is based on the assumption that they can authorize the *manner* of access. They admit that the DMCA permits an exemption to itself for RE, and then state that this exemption - and presumably the other exemptions as well - are not to apply in a manner to which the copyright holder objects, that is, which the copyright holder does not authorize. This is a simple case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. It is also simply incorrect. The DMCA states: "notwithstanding" the clauses outlawing circumvention of TPMs and distribution of means of circumvention, RE is permitted to the extent that the RE does not constitute copyright infringement - NOT to the extent that the access to the work was authorized by the copyright holder. The MPAA's statement is pure fabrication nowhere supported by the language of the law. We at Openlaw point out that no infringement of copyright was commited in the reverse engineering which created DeCSS; nor has there been infringement of copyright in any use of DeCSS for the purpose of RE. We challenge the MPAA to produce evidence of such. In addition to this rather embarrassing error, the MPAA also makes a few more statements about the DMCA bordering on the grotesque. First, the MPAA states that RE of a program is "to ensure that the program can work with other programs"; this is wrong. RE is for the purpose of establishing interoperability between two or more programs, one of which must be an independantly created program. The RE'd program does not itself have to be one of the interoperating programs. REad 1201(f) again, boys. Second, the "strict limitations" on sharing of RE research or tools which the MPAA mentions are nowhere to be found, other than the aforementioned restriction to the extent that the RE does not infringe copyright. The evocation of other imaginary restrictions in addition to the aforementioned is clearly a wishful reaction on the part of the writer to an exemption clause in which he could see little light to illuminate the MPAA's litigious way. Finally, the MPAA also states that RE is not permissable when other "readily available commercial alternatives" to the act of RE exist - such as a licensed player. This is, quite simply, trash. Nowhere does the DMCA state any such restriction. This statement is simply the MPAA's way of saying "REing a licensed player for the purpose of creating another player, which we haven't licensed, is not permissable, because of the existence of the licensed player." We at Openlaw would like to recommend a course of action to the MPAA: do not try to fix the player market. There's a lot of litigious hotheads out there, you know? You might land in some hot water. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Tim Neu > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:42 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ > > > All requested edits that I have as of today _should_ be merged > now. (although I hear there is still much yet to come!) > > As requested, I have created two separate responses for each of the MPAA's > questions: > > OpenLaw's answer to the question: > > and > > OpenLaw's answer to the MPAA: > > This should let us address both the MPAA's questions and answers - but it > also requires all responses to be changed appropriately. > > There is still much to do if anyone is bored! :-) > > http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html > > (also linked from the OpenLaw DVD resources page) > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=-=-=-=- > ______ _ __ "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 > / <_/ / / < / (_; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:40:47 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zC66-0007A3-00 for ; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 00:40:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:40:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ 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 Perhaps all of this could go into a subcatagory of its own... Someone had pointed out some news stories released by Sony, which cited an "agreement amoung DVD player manufacturers"... (I think the story was on the recall the sony playstation). People on the list at the time had mentioned why that statement could be used against the DVD industry - since agreements of that nature could be illegal. Anyone want to 1. Find the sony links refrenced earlier, and 2. Write up something on why these agreements could be illegal? I think this belongs in its own section, linked to from #2. On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Mark Kornblum wrote: > Hello, I am a new member of this list so forgive me if this point has been > brought up before. In reading the new MPAA FAQ, I noticed several places > where they claim piracy has wiped out or will wipe out their legitimate > market. For example, in response to the question, "Why is piracy such a > major concern?" They replied: > > Unabated, piracy can destroy the legitimate marketplace for consumers and > stop the development and distribution of new works. In some areas of the > world, video pirates have driven legitimate video merchants out of > business, leaving consumers with no choice but to buy inferior pirated > versions of motion pictures. > > Later on, in the last question, which deals with region encoding, they > say: > > Without such protections, motion picture theatrical distributors and > exhibitors abroad could lose a significant portion of their audiences to > advance DVD viewing. The lost theatrical revenues could result in theater > closures, lost jobs, depriving consumers throughout the world from seeing > motion pictures on the big screen. > > In both cases, it sounds like they are more interested in protecting > their monopolies than in protecting consumer choice. If legitimate video > merchants did indeed go out of business, it would seem to show that the > consumers did not want to pay high prices and would be satisfied with > lower quality pirated copies at a lower price. This seems to be the free > market at work and the fact is if the MPAA had filled the low price niche > itself piracy would have been less of a problem. Similary, if consumers > would be satisfied watching DVD's in their homes and would skip going to > the theatre, why do we need to prevent them from doing so in the name > allowing them to see movies on the big screen? If they want to see them > on the big screen they will. > > Perhaps the open law FAQ should mention the monopolistic implications of > these MPAA responses? I don't know if it would fit into the "our response > to their response" format but it seems like an important issue to me. > > Regards, > > Mark Kornblum > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:58:48 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zCNb-0007eJ-00 for ; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 00:58:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:58:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Updated again In-Reply-To: <000101bfcf65$98b1d120$df7945ce@bugbug> 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 have updated the FAQ once again. I have received multiple suggestions for several MPAA questions - and have either dropped one, added both, or merged the answers as best as I could. If something you have suggested is still missing - and you belive it still belongs, let me know. That's all for tonight folks! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:56:28 -0400 Received: (qmail 19669 invoked by uid 502); 6 Jun 2000 14:01:43 -0000 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:01:43 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] cssfaq.org Back Online Message-ID: <20000606100143.D11564@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 After some technical problems, I've been informed that the Openlaw DVD FAQ is back online at www.cssfaq.org. Thanks to Seth Schoen for both hosting the FAQ and for getting the problem corrected as quickly as he did. Thanks, Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 12:04:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06643 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:04:26 -0400 Received: from dial247.roadrunner.com (dial247.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.247] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA06640 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:04:21 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial247.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00774 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:06:27 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:06:26 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000606100625.A598@localhost> References: <000401bfcf72$3c90b0c0$df7945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <000401bfcf72$3c90b0c0$df7945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 11:46:53PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 11:46:53PM -0500, sparky wrote: > Hey, everyone seems to be doing #4 tonight. Sorry about the false alarm Tim, > but these questions are tough. Here's a full writeup of 4. Have at it all. > > *** > <4> > Q. What is DeCSS and how does it work? > -------------------------------------- > > MPAA's A: > --------- > In late 1999, a small group of hackers in Europe worked to descramble the > CSS encryption system for DVDs and created an unauthorized software utility > commonly referred to as DeCSS. A computer that has the DeCSS utility can use > it to break the CSS code on DVDs making it possible for motion pictures in > DVD format to be decrypted and illegally copied onto a computer's hard drive > for further distribution over the internet or otherwise, in perfect, digital > format. DeCSS is akin to the tool that breaks the lock on your house. > > draft Openlaw A: > ---------------- > This answer is essentially propaganda. This answer is propaganda. [ Paul's comment: No "essentially" about it. If this were in a scientific paper I'd use a word much stronger than "propaganda". ] U.S. law does not define such a thing as an "authorized" software utility or DVD player. It is certainly true that neither the MPAA nor the motion picture studios "authorized" the creation of the DeCSS program, but they have no right to make such an authorization in the first place. Their claim is extraordinary: organizations which make movies think they can regulate who makes a machine or program to play those movies. The statement that DeCSS makes it possible for DVDs to be "illegally copied" is both specious and misleading. Specious because what DeCSS does is absolutely necessary to watching CSS-scrambled movies on a DVD. Misleading because "making it possible for motion pictures ... to be decrypted and illegally copied onto a computer's hard drive for further distribution ..." claims 1. That copying to your own hard drive is illegal. Assuming that the copying is done for person use after media-shifting, it would legal. 2. The further distribution might very well be illegal, *but this has nothing to do with DeCSS per se*. This kind of illegal duplication was enabled by other "ripper" programs long before DeCSS came on the scene. > For a factual description of how > DeCSS works, see [links]. How does DeCSS work according to the MPAA? It > works by allowing copying "for further distribution" - as though what > happened to the copy later were intrinsically related to the making of the > copy. > > This entire answer is based on an assumption - or, less an assumption than > an agenda. That agenda is to make DeCSS seem as illegal as possible, to make > it seem that it has only illegal uses. Not only does DeCSS not have only > illegal uses, it has substantial legal uses, as a reverse engineering tool > for example; its use in this regard has been documented: DeCSS has > contributed to the creation of a Linux DVD player by the LiViD open source > group (LiViD stands for Linux Video and DVD)[link]. This is not only a fact, > it is a fact the MPAA wants to persuade everyone to ignore. > Not everyone who has used DeCSS is a thief, as the MPAA would like you to > believe. The creators of the LiViD DVD player are not thieves; but they used > it. The makers of DeCSS are not thieves; one of them has stated that he > wished DeCSS to be used for reverse engineering projects to create DVD > players for operating systems not yet supporting DVD. But in the MPAA's > world, presumably all these people are guilty by association with DeCSS. > Interestingly, by the standard of the MPAA's "tool that breaks the lock on > your house" metaphor, not only is a use of DeCSS not an act of theft, it can > only be a completely legal act; that is because DeCSS is useable only on > DVDs which you have purchased and which you therefore own - in other words, > it is like a tool that you use to break the lock on the house you purchased > from the MPAA when you are locked out and the MPAA won't tell you where they ... when the MPAA have locked you out ... > hid the key. > > That the MPAA considers DeCSS a criminal tool indicates that they really > mean by that metaphor is "a tool which breaks the lock on *our* house"; the > MPAA are trying to sell you a house, and still control it. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of sam th > > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 11:16 PM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > > Q.4: > > > [ ... ] > > > "DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house." > > > > > > "The MPAA attempts to make DeCSS users sound like murderers, theives, > > > and villians. However, for this analogy to be factual, the > > house you > > > would be breaking into would be your own." > > > > > > > How about adding : > > > > "If you had bought your house from the MPAA, this would be like preventing > > you from returning home between 9AM and 5PM, and then calling you a theif > > when you snuck back into your own house during 'unapproved' hours." > > > > sam th > > sam@uchicago.edu > > http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 12:16:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06800 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:16:01 -0400 Received: from dial187.roadrunner.com (dial187.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.187] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA06797 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:15:58 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial187.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01035 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:18:05 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:18:04 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000606101803.A1013@localhost> References: <000401bfcf72$3c90b0c0$df7945ce@bugbug> <20000606100625.A598@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000606100625.A598@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:06:26AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:06:26AM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > U.S. law does not define such a thing as an "authorized" software utility > or DVD player. It is certainly true that neither the MPAA nor the > motion picture studios "authorized" the creation of the DeCSS program, > but they have no right to make such an authorization in the first place. > Their claim is extraordinary: organizations which make movies think > they can regulate who makes a machine or program to play those movies. > > The statement that DeCSS makes it possible for DVDs to be "illegally copied" > is both specious and misleading. Specious because what DeCSS does is > absolutely > necessary to watching CSS-scrambled movies on a DVD. Misleading because > "making it possible for motion pictures ... to be decrypted and illegally > copied onto a computer's hard drive for further distribution ..." claims > 1. That copying to your own hard drive is illegal. Assuming that the > copying is done for person use after media-shifting, it would legal. If the copying is done for personal use after media-shifting, it would be legal. > 2. The further distribution might very well be illegal, *but this > has nothing to do with DeCSS per se*. This kind of illegal duplication but any DVD-player has the potential to be used for this purpose. For example, there were "ripper" programs that grab a DVD movie and store it on the hard drive long before DeCSS came on the scene. > was enabled by other "ripper" programs long before DeCSS came on the > scene. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 12:31:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07062 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:31:36 -0400 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 MAA07059 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:31:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA04492 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:33:08 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:33:07 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-Reply-To: <20000606100625.A598@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 Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 11:46:53PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > Hey, everyone seems to be doing #4 tonight. Sorry about the false alarm Tim, > > but these questions are tough. Here's a full writeup of 4. Have at it all. > > > > *** > > <4> > > Q. What is DeCSS and how does it work? > > -------------------------------------- > > > > MPAA's A: > > --------- > > In late 1999, a small group of hackers in Europe worked to descramble the > > CSS encryption system for DVDs and created an unauthorized software utility > > commonly referred to as DeCSS. A computer that has the DeCSS utility can use > > it to break the CSS code on DVDs making it possible for motion pictures in > > DVD format to be decrypted and illegally copied onto a computer's hard drive > > for further distribution over the internet or otherwise, in perfect, digital > > format. DeCSS is akin to the tool that breaks the lock on your house. > > > > draft Openlaw A: > > ---------------- > > This answer is essentially propaganda. > > This answer is propaganda. > > [ Paul's comment: No "essentially" about it. If this were in a > scientific paper I'd use a word much stronger than "propaganda". ] agree. > > U.S. law does not define such a thing as an "authorized" software utility > or DVD player. It is certainly true that neither the MPAA nor the > motion picture studios "authorized" the creation of the DeCSS program, > but they have no right to make such an authorization in the first place. > Their claim is extraordinary: organizations which make movies think > they can regulate who makes a machine or program to play those movies. > > The statement that DeCSS makes it possible for DVDs to be "illegally copied" > is both specious and misleading. Specious because what DeCSS does is absolutely > necessary to watching CSS-scrambled movies on a DVD. Misleading because > "making it possible for motion pictures ... to be decrypted and illegally > copied onto a computer's hard drive for further distribution ..." claims > 1. That copying to your own hard drive is illegal. Assuming that the > copying is done for person use after media-shifting, it would legal. > 2. The further distribution might very well be illegal, *but this > has nothing to do with DeCSS per se*. This kind of illegal duplication > was enabled by other "ripper" programs long before DeCSS came on the > scene. I think that the transition from the previous para to the next (Paul's to mine) will need some ironing. Tim, why don't you put it in as Paul has penned it, and we'll work on it from there. > > > For a factual description of how > > DeCSS works, see [links]. How does DeCSS work according to the MPAA? It > > works by allowing copying "for further distribution" - as though what > > happened to the copy later were intrinsically related to the making of the > > copy. > > > > This entire answer is based on an assumption - or, less an assumption than > > an agenda. That agenda is to make DeCSS seem as illegal as possible, to make > > it seem that it has only illegal uses. Not only does DeCSS not have only > > illegal uses, it has substantial legal uses, as a reverse engineering tool > > for example; its use in this regard has been documented: DeCSS has > > contributed to the creation of a Linux DVD player by the LiViD open source > > group (LiViD stands for Linux Video and DVD)[link]. This is not only a fact, > > it is a fact the MPAA wants to persuade everyone to ignore. > > > > Not everyone who has used DeCSS is a thief, as the MPAA would like you to > > believe. The creators of the LiViD DVD player are not thieves; but they used > > it. The makers of DeCSS are not thieves; one of them has stated that he > > wished DeCSS to be used for reverse engineering projects to create DVD > > players for operating systems not yet supporting DVD. But in the MPAA's > > world, presumably all these people are guilty by association with DeCSS. > yeah, that one was just cause my brain couldn't be bothered. > > > Interestingly, by the standard of the MPAA's "tool that breaks the lock on > > your house" metaphor, not only is a use of DeCSS not an act of theft, it can > > only be a completely legal act; that is because DeCSS is useable only on > > DVDs which you have purchased and which you therefore own - in other words, > > it is like a tool that you use to break the lock on the house you purchased > > from the MPAA when you are locked out and the MPAA won't tell you where they > > ... when the MPAA have locked you out ... Like! Let's shove that stupid metaphor back down their gullets.. sparky > A> > hid the key. > > > > That the MPAA considers DeCSS a criminal tool indicates that they really > > mean by that metaphor is "a tool which breaks the lock on *our* house"; the > > MPAA are trying to sell you a house, and still control it. > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of sam th > > > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 11:16 PM > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > > > > Q.4: > > > > [ ... ] > > > > "DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house." > > > > > > > > "The MPAA attempts to make DeCSS users sound like murderers, theives, > > > > and villians. However, for this analogy to be factual, the > > > house you > > > > would be breaking into would be your own." > > > > > > > > > > How about adding : > > > > > > "If you had bought your house from the MPAA, this would be like preventing > > > you from returning home between 9AM and 5PM, and then calling you a theif > > > when you snuck back into your own house during 'unapproved' hours." > > > > > > sam th > > > sam@uchicago.edu > > > http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 12:43:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07172 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:43:36 -0400 Received: from MIT.EDU (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.28]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA07169 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:43:36 -0400 Received: from GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA03684; Tue, 6 Jun 00 12:45:20 EDT Received: from melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.45]) by grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA08228 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:45:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oobleck.mit.edu (OOBLECK.MIT.EDU [18.54.0.122]) by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA09281 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethf@localhost) by oobleck.mit.edu (8.9.3) id MAA04908; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006061645.MAA04908@oobleck.mit.edu> From: Seth Finkelstein To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >>> it is like a tool that you use to break the lock on the house you purchased >>> from the MPAA when you are locked out and the MPAA won't tell you where ... >> >> ... when the MPAA have locked you out ... > > Like! Let's shove that stupid metaphor back down their gullets.. "it is like a tool that you use to make your own house key in the house you purchased, when the MPAA has locked you out and will only let you back into the house according to its terms" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Web Programmer sethf@mit.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 12:47:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07318 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:47:51 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07315 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:47:48 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:49:42 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C07@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:49:34 -0700 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 There are a number of web page "annotaters" out there. Presumably we should do similar annotation w/ as many of them as we can find? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 5:38 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ > > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:48:44PM -0500, sparky wrote: > [ ... ] > > My god.. can we just write a response to their freaking > FAQ? Can we! The > > question is, where can we post it on the net for all to > see? John, can you > > do it, or think of someone who would? > > > > I relish a PR offensive. We've had nothing on that front. > Does anyone feel > > likewise? > > An easy way to start is to use the annotator on eon.law.harvard.edu to > mark-up their faq. > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 13:17:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA07575 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:17:06 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA07572 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:17:05 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:18:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:18:39 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Technical questions? 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 Hello-- I am Matt Pavlovich, and I founded the Linux Video and DVD Project, and the OpenDVD Group. I have been lurking through the mailing list archives for a while (due to my reluctance to punish my e-mail box further) and have noticed a lot of inconsistancies when it comes to technical matters. Currently, I am providing the EFF with technical expertise in the NY DMCA trial, and the CA trade secret case (which I am also a defendant). I'd be more than happy to help clear up any technical confusion that may exist. If you have a question, feel free to drop me a note, or put TECH: in the subject, and my filter will pick that message out of this list. Regards, Matthew R. Pavlovich From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 13:26:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA07733 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:26:17 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA07730 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:26:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20000606172715.1030.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:27:15 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:27:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ - #7 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 --- sparky wrote: > It's gotten late and so this is a lot more sarcastic than I expect we > want, but I decided screw it, if we don't want it, you'll all say so. > Personally I think sarcasm could be to the point. #7 in particular > asks for it. While I got a good laugh (several in fact) out of the wit - it's probably best to take a little more dry tone. Here's my shot at it - this is a mix of about 50-50 my stuff and your stuff. Q. -- Doesn't the DMCA allow reverse engineering for compatibility, for example to allow playing of a DVD on a Linux operating system-driven personal computer? MPAA's A: --------- The DMCA does allow reverse engineering. However, the reverse engineering provisions in the DMCA were never intended to enable anyone to circumvent technical protection measures (TPMs) for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to or making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. The DMCA does allow a lawful user of a computer program to circumvent TPMs to ensure that the program can work with other programs (interoperability); and, with strict limitations, the research may be shared with others, as long as it does not infringe the copyright in the original or a related work. However, reverse engineering is not permissible if there is a readily available commercial alternative for that purpose. In this case, there exist MANY commercially available DVD players. draft Openlaw answer: --------------------- The only correct statement in this answer about the reverse engineering exemption in the DMCA is the first sentence. Nearly every other statement contains misrepresentations of the law. The DMCA allows reverse engineering; the pertinent clause is 1201(f), which has four parts. We urge the reader (and the MPAA) to read the law. Let's review what it actually says. Let's start with (f)(4), which defines interoperabiltiy. "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. ". When computer programs exchange information, each keeps a copy of it. Nothing indicates that this information may not be the data associated with a copyrighted work. OK, so doesn't this copying have to be authorized? Can you circumvent TPMs to make 'unauthorized' copies and gain 'unauthorized' access. On this point, the MPAA is dead wrong. Let's read the statue. The exact language, which is found in (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) is that "notwithstanding" the clauses outlawing access circumvention of TPMs and distribution of means of TPM circumvention, reverse engineering is permitted to the extent that it does not "constitute infringement under this title." It is well settled law that only certain kinds of copying require the explicit authorization of the copyright owner, the rest are considered "fair use". If you have paid for a copy of the work, your ability to make fair use is greatly expanded. 'Format shifting' a movie, in its entirety, would be fair use relying on the precedent of Sony v. Universal Studios, which found fair uses for VCR's. In addition to this rather embarrassing error, the MPAA also makes a few more misrepresentations of the DMCA. For example, the MPAA implies that the RE exceptions only applies when "a lawful user of a computer program" reverse engineerings "to ensure that the program can work with other programs". This is wrong in that they incorrectly attempt to restrict the exception by asserting that the reverse engineered program must be among the interoperating ones. The statue says otherwise in each of (f)(1,2,3): one need only enable "interoperability of an independently created computer program with **OTHER** programs" (emphasis added). The reverse engineered program does not itself have to be one of the interoperating programs. The MPAA again neglects the case where the exchanging of information constitues a fair use passing of their works between 'other' programs not under their control. Another misrepresentation is the 'strict limitations' the MPAA refers to. They don't state what they are, because actually they're not so strict. The limitations to creating (f)(2) and distributing (f)(3) tools for circumventing TPMs are simple. You must "enable interoperability" in a way that does not "constitue infringement". Note also that (f)(1) isn't needed yet, because it grants an exception to (a)(1)(A), which isn't effective until Oct. 2000. Finally, the MPAA also states that reverse engineering is not permissable when other "readily available commercial alternatives" to the act of reverse engineering exist - such as a licensed player. This is, quite simply, wishful fabrication. Nowhere does the DMCA state any such restriction. Reverse engineering is legal because you can't copyright ideas. The MPAA's made up standard contradicts the entire spirit of the foundation of copyright. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 13:27:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA07806 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:27:05 -0400 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA07802 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:27:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20000606172805.17540.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:28:05 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:28:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ - #7 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 --- sparky wrote: > It's gotten late and so this is a lot more sarcastic than I expect we > want, but I decided screw it, if we don't want it, you'll all say so. > Personally I think sarcasm could be to the point. #7 in particular > asks for it. While I got a good laugh (several in fact) out of the wit - it's probably best to take a little more dry tone. Here's my shot at it - this is a mix of about 50-50 my stuff and your stuff. Q. -- Doesn't the DMCA allow reverse engineering for compatibility, for example to allow playing of a DVD on a Linux operating system-driven personal computer? MPAA's A: --------- The DMCA does allow reverse engineering. However, the reverse engineering provisions in the DMCA were never intended to enable anyone to circumvent technical protection measures (TPMs) for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to or making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. The DMCA does allow a lawful user of a computer program to circumvent TPMs to ensure that the program can work with other programs (interoperability); and, with strict limitations, the research may be shared with others, as long as it does not infringe the copyright in the original or a related work. However, reverse engineering is not permissible if there is a readily available commercial alternative for that purpose. In this case, there exist MANY commercially available DVD players. draft Openlaw answer: --------------------- The only correct statement in this answer about the reverse engineering exemption in the DMCA is the first sentence. Nearly every other statement contains misrepresentations of the law. The DMCA allows reverse engineering; the pertinent clause is 1201(f), which has four parts. We urge the reader (and the MPAA) to read the law. Let's review what it actually says. Let's start with (f)(4), which defines interoperabiltiy. "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. ". When computer programs exchange information, each keeps a copy of it. Nothing indicates that this information may not be the data associated with a copyrighted work. OK, so doesn't this copying have to be authorized? Can you circumvent TPMs to make 'unauthorized' copies and gain 'unauthorized' access. On this point, the MPAA is dead wrong. Let's read the statue. The exact language, which is found in (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) is that "notwithstanding" the clauses outlawing access circumvention of TPMs and distribution of means of TPM circumvention, reverse engineering is permitted to the extent that it does not "constitute infringement under this title." It is well settled law that only certain kinds of copying require the explicit authorization of the copyright owner, the rest are considered "fair use". If you have paid for a copy of the work, your ability to make fair use is greatly expanded. 'Format shifting' a movie, in its entirety, would be fair use relying on the precedent of Sony v. Universal Studios, which found fair uses for VCR's. In addition to this rather embarrassing error, the MPAA also makes a few more misrepresentations of the DMCA. For example, the MPAA implies that the RE exceptions only applies when "a lawful user of a computer program" reverse engineerings "to ensure that the program can work with other programs". This is wrong in that they incorrectly attempt to restrict the exception by asserting that the reverse engineered program must be among the interoperating ones. The statue says otherwise in each of (f)(1,2,3): one need only enable "interoperability of an independently created computer program with **OTHER** programs" (emphasis added). The reverse engineered program does not itself have to be one of the interoperating programs. The MPAA again neglects the case where the exchanging of information constitues a fair use passing of their works between 'other' programs not under their control. Another misrepresentation is the 'strict limitations' the MPAA refers to. They don't state what they are, because actually they're not so strict. The limitations to creating (f)(2) and distributing (f)(3) tools for circumventing TPMs are simple. You must "enable interoperability" in a way that does not "constitue infringement". Note also that (f)(1) isn't needed yet, because it grants an exception to (a)(1)(A), which isn't effective until Oct. 2000. Finally, the MPAA also states that reverse engineering is not permissable when other "readily available commercial alternatives" to the act of reverse engineering exist - such as a licensed player. This is, quite simply, wishful fabrication. Nowhere does the DMCA state any such restriction. Reverse engineering is legal because you can't copyright ideas. The MPAA's made up standard contradicts the entire spirit of the foundation of copyright. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 14:02:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08215 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:02:51 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08212 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:02:46 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:04:34 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C08@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:04:28 -0700 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 Ok, allowing for some "technological transparency" here, this is what I come up with: Utilities like RipDVD provide access to the -copy-, the medium in which the work is fixed (in this case I am referring to the scrambled bits as the "medium"). With RipDVD you can make a copy of the original DVD that will play just as the original did ... but you still have no access to the -work- when using RipDVD, because you still need a licensed DVD player in order to view the movie. DeCSS provides access to the -work- by reshuffling the bits of the medium into a form which commonly available tools (MPEG viewers) can make viewable. (Yes, the MPEG bits could be considered "medium" as well ... this is where the "technological transparency" comes in by allowing for "commonly available tools" to provide the next stage in the viewing process...) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu] > Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 5:35 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ > > > Paul Fenimore writes: > > : On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 01:53:29PM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > : > > : > --- "Peter D. Junger" wrote: > : > > : > > Be careful with the phrase ``access control''. > Remember that DeCSS > : > > only prevents access to the contents of a copy of the work, > : > > which will be in the possesion of its owner or his agent or > : > > bailee, whereas the access control provisions of 17 U.S.C. > : > > section 1201(a) refer only to access to the intangible > work, not > : > > to access to a copy of the work with the authority of > the copy's > : > > owner. > : > > : > This is a very good point that we've had on the backburner lately. > : > 1201(a) does NOT ban all decryption and decryption tools. > It only bans > : > those that are used to circumvent *access* control measures. Since > : > Congress didn't provide a definition of 'access', a Court > should take > : > the definition that avoids Constitutional questions. By > distinguishing > : > between access control and use control, you could easily > say that you > : > are not circumventing CSS for 'access' (since you paid > First Sale). > : > : Access is not defined by the statute, but it has an > established meaning > : in infringement cases. Courts accept either proof of copying, or as > : an alternative proof of access and substantial similarity > of the works > : in question as the standard of proof to establish infringement. > : > : This is discussed in Nimmer, where out of three definitions > of access, > : Nimmer endorses, roughly speaking, the opportunity to see, > hear or view. > > But 1201(a) does not refer to ``access'' as such, it---very carefully > I submit---refers to ``access to a work.'' The type of access that > you are discussing almost always invloved showing that the alleged > copyright violator had acess to a _copyy_. > > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law > School--Cleveland, OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 14:25:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08975 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:25:54 -0400 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA08972 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:25:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20000606182657.23647.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 11:26:57 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:26:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Another Copyright Office RFC regarding DMCA 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 Copyright Office is conducting another request for public comment on the DMCA. This request covers effects on section 109 (First Sale doctrine), and section 117 (Computer Programs). This was announced in the Federal Register June 5, 2000: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a000605c.html The specific announcement is available in text or pdf: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14001-filed http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14001-filed.pdf Here are the questions: 1. Section 109 (a) What effect, if any, has the enactment of prohibitions on circumvention of technological protection measures had on the operation of the first sale doctrine? (b) What effect, if any, has the enactment of prohibitions on falsification, alteration or removal of copyright management information had on the operation of the first sale doctrine? (c) What effect, if any, has the development of electronic commerce and associated technology had on the operation of the first sale doctrine? (d) What is the relationship between existing and emergent technology, on one hand, and the first sale doctrine, on the other? (e) To what extent, if any, is the first sale doctrine related to, or premised on, particular media or methods of distribution? (f) To what extent, if any, does the emergence of new technologies alter the technological premises (if any) upon which the first sale doctrine is established? (g) Should the first sale doctrine be expanded in some way to apply to digital transmissions? Why or why not? (h) Does the absence of a digital first sale doctrine under present law have any measurable effect (positive or negative) on the marketplace for works in digital form? 1. Section 117 (a) What effect, if any, has the enactment of prohibitions on circumvention of technological protection measures had on the operation of section 117? (b) What effect, if any, has the enactment of prohibitions on falsification, alteration or removal of copyright management information had on the operation of section 117? (c) What effect, if any, has the development of electronic commerce and associated technology had on the operation of section 117? (d) What is the relationship between existing and emergent technology, on one hand, and section 117, on the other? (e) To what extent, if any, is section 117 related to, or premised on, any particular technology? (f) To what extent, if any, does the emergence of new technologies alter the technological premises (if any) upon which section 117 is established? 2. General (a) Are there any additional issues that should be considered? If so, what are they and what are your views on them? (b) Do you believe that hearings would be useful in preparing the required report to Congress? If so, do you wish to participate in any hearings? Information collected from responses to this Federal Register Notice will be considered when preparing the required report for Congress. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 14:26:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08983 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:26:01 -0400 Received: from web512.mail.yahoo.com (web512.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA08980 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:26:00 -0400 Message-ID: <20000606182657.3435.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web512.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 11:26:57 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:26:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Another Copyright Office RFC regarding DMCA 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 Copyright Office is conducting another request for public comment on the DMCA. This request covers effects on section 109 (First Sale doctrine), and section 117 (Computer Programs). This was announced in the Federal Register June 5, 2000: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a000605c.html The specific announcement is available in text or pdf: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14001-filed http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14001-filed.pdf Here are the questions: 1. Section 109 (a) What effect, if any, has the enactment of prohibitions on circumvention of technological protection measures had on the operation of the first sale doctrine? (b) What effect, if any, has the enactment of prohibitions on falsification, alteration or removal of copyright management information had on the operation of the first sale doctrine? (c) What effect, if any, has the development of electronic commerce and associated technology had on the operation of the first sale doctrine? (d) What is the relationship between existing and emergent technology, on one hand, and the first sale doctrine, on the other? (e) To what extent, if any, is the first sale doctrine related to, or premised on, particular media or methods of distribution? (f) To what extent, if any, does the emergence of new technologies alter the technological premises (if any) upon which the first sale doctrine is established? (g) Should the first sale doctrine be expanded in some way to apply to digital transmissions? Why or why not? (h) Does the absence of a digital first sale doctrine under present law have any measurable effect (positive or negative) on the marketplace for works in digital form? 1. Section 117 (a) What effect, if any, has the enactment of prohibitions on circumvention of technological protection measures had on the operation of section 117? (b) What effect, if any, has the enactment of prohibitions on falsification, alteration or removal of copyright management information had on the operation of section 117? (c) What effect, if any, has the development of electronic commerce and associated technology had on the operation of section 117? (d) What is the relationship between existing and emergent technology, on one hand, and section 117, on the other? (e) To what extent, if any, is section 117 related to, or premised on, any particular technology? (f) To what extent, if any, does the emergence of new technologies alter the technological premises (if any) upon which section 117 is established? 2. General (a) Are there any additional issues that should be considered? If so, what are they and what are your views on them? (b) Do you believe that hearings would be useful in preparing the required report to Congress? If so, do you wish to participate in any hearings? Information collected from responses to this Federal Register Notice will be considered when preparing the required report for Congress. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 14:26:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09066 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:26:47 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA09059 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:26:46 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:28:44 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C09@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:28:41 -0700 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 Should the second section be more accurately titled "OpenLaw's rebuttal to the MPAA answer"? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Neu [mailto:tim@tneu.visi.com] > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 7:42 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ > > > All requested edits that I have as of today _should_ be merged > now. (although I hear there is still much yet to come!) > > As requested, I have created two separate responses for each > of the MPAA's > questions: > > OpenLaw's answer to the question: > > and > > OpenLaw's answer to the MPAA: > > This should let us address both the MPAA's questions and > answers - but it > also requires all responses to be changed appropriately. > > There is still much to do if anyone is bored! :-) > http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html (also linked from the OpenLaw DVD resources page) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:36:24 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zOEg-0002HB-00; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 11:37:58 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:37:58 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000606113758.X2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200006061645.MAA04908@oobleck.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006061645.MAA04908@oobleck.mit.edu>; from sethf@MIT.EDU on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 12:45:08PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth Finkelstein writes: > "it is like a tool that you use to make your own house key in > the house you purchased, when the MPAA has locked you out and will > only let you back into the house according to its terms" It gets weirder, though, because 17 USC 202 says you don't own all aspects of the house you purchased, but 17 USC 109 says you can sell the house anyway, if you get tired of 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 Jun 6 14:39:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09347 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:39:07 -0400 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 OAA09344 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:39:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA11355 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:40:25 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:40:24 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ - #7 In-Reply-To: <20000606172715.1030.qmail@web515.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, 6 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > Finally, the MPAA also states that reverse engineering is not > permissable when other "readily available commercial alternatives" > to the act of reverse engineering exist - such as a licensed > player. This is, quite simply, wishful fabrication. Nowhere does > the DMCA state any such restriction. Reverse engineering is legal > because you can't copyright ideas. The MPAA's made up standard > contradicts the entire spirit of the foundation of copyright. > the only thing I would do is drive the spike a little harder in this last para by pointing out how easy it is to interpret the MPAA's "commercial alternatives" to mean that RE shouldn't be allowed if a licensed player exists. We could end it "Of course this is a simple mistake on the MPAA's part" or something equally understated. We don't need to make it just witty, I think it would be quite a barb, and this response is the appropriate place for it too. Also, we may as well remove the "embarrassing" comment from a previous para, as that was really part of the sarcastic tone. The sentence is better without it. sparky > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > http://photos.yahoo.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 14:40:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09436 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:40:51 -0400 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 OAA09433 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:40:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA11428 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:42:24 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:42:23 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-Reply-To: <20000606113758.X2589@zork.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 Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Seth Finkelstein writes: > > > "it is like a tool that you use to make your own house key in > > the house you purchased, when the MPAA has locked you out and will > > only let you back into the house according to its terms" > > It gets weirder, though, because 17 USC 202 says you don't own all > aspects of the house you purchased, but 17 USC 109 says you can sell > the house anyway, if you get tired of it. What specific aspects of the house do we not own after having purchased it? better to know even if we don't worry about it in the Openlaw Rebuttal. sparky > > -- > 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 Jun 6 14:45:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09488 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:45:33 -0400 Received: from MIT.EDU (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.28]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA09485 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:45:33 -0400 Received: from GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA14312; Tue, 6 Jun 00 14:47:18 EDT Received: from melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.45]) by grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA11659 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:47:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oobleck.mit.edu (OOBLECK.MIT.EDU [18.54.0.122]) by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA14544 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:47:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethf@localhost) by oobleck.mit.edu (8.9.3) id OAA04999; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006061847.OAA04999@oobleck.mit.edu> From: Seth Finkelstein To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-Reply-To: <20000606113758.X2589@zork.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >> Seth Finkelstein writes: >> "it is like a tool that you use to make your own house key in >> the house you purchased, when the MPAA has locked you out and will >> only let you back into the house according to its terms" > Seth David Schoen > It gets weirder, though, because 17 USC 202 says you don't own all > aspects of the house you purchased, but 17 USC 109 says you can sell > the house anyway, if you get tired of it. Ah, but there was some fine print on the door - "This house is not sold, but indefinitely *leased* to you for a one-time fee. By opening this door, you agree to the following terms, from MPAA Leasing ..." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Web Programmer sethf@mit.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 14:52:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09642 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:52:42 -0400 Received: from web510.mail.yahoo.com (web510.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA09639 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:52:41 -0400 Message-ID: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 11:53:41 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:53:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 new declaration of Robert Schumann. It covers the practicalities of usage of DeCSS, among other things. Evidently, college students can download DVD movies in under 7 minutes. The declaration is available at: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-sds.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 14:56:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09777 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:56:37 -0400 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 OAA09773 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:56:31 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA12066 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:58:03 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:57:25 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-Reply-To: <200006061847.OAA04999@oobleck.mit.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 Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Seth Finkelstein wrote: > >> Seth Finkelstein writes: > >> "it is like a tool that you use to make your own house key in > >> the house you purchased, when the MPAA has locked you out and will > >> only let you back into the house according to its terms" > > > Seth David Schoen > > It gets weirder, though, because 17 USC 202 says you don't own all > > aspects of the house you purchased, but 17 USC 109 says you can sell > > the house anyway, if you get tired of it. > > Ah, but there was some fine print on the door - "This house is > not sold, but indefinitely *leased* to you for a one-time fee. By > opening this door, you agree to the following terms, from MPAA Leasing ..." > We press the sold point, and let some boneheaded lackey of the MPAA make the "indefinitely leased" statement. I'm sure there are fine points on the side of the MPAA in the matter of licensed vs sold, but .. I take this back. Let's create the more substantial working-through of this metaphor, with the twists and turns included; this will show the kind of machinations the MPAA would like to get the public to be susceptible to.. and we add it in a footnote accessible by link from the rebuttal doc. Anyone who has the guts can read it. sparky > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Seth Finkelstein Consulting Web Programmer sethf@mit.edu > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 15:10:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10229 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:10:12 -0400 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 PAA10225 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:10:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA12719 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:11:40 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:11:40 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.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, 6 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > There is a new declaration of Robert Schumann. It covers the > practicalities of usage of DeCSS, among other things. Evidently, > college students can download DVD movies in under 7 minutes. > > The declaration is available at: > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-sds.htm Already working on a reply, which I gladly submit to Openlaw Rewrite Press. :) http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm, if anyone feels like joining in. To be honest, I started it mainly to blow off steam, but what they hey. sp > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > http://photos.yahoo.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 15:15:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10352 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:15:26 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10349 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:15:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29606 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:16:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:16:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.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 And there's the 'noessential' copying bit in section 3 (which ought to be covered as a step in intercompatability or under 17 USC 117) It would be the best laugh I've had in days if not for the fact that someone might take this guy seriously. On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > There is a new declaration of Robert Schumann. It covers the > practicalities of usage of DeCSS, among other things. Evidently, > college students can download DVD movies in under 7 minutes. > > The declaration is available at: > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-sds.htm > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > http://photos.yahoo.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 15:17:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10411 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:17:21 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10408 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:17:19 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zOsH-0002PN-00; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:18:53 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:18:53 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000606121853.Y2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000606113758.X2589@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 01:42:23PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky writes: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > It gets weirder, though, because 17 USC 202 says you don't own all > > aspects of the house you purchased, but 17 USC 109 says you can sell > > the house anyway, if you get tired of it. > > What specific aspects of the house do we not own after having purchased > it? better to know even if we don't worry about it in the Openlaw > Rebuttal. The ability to make copies of the house is denied by law. With physical property, it's not ordinary illegal to make a copy (if you also own suitable raw materials and tools). This is the default situation with all physical property, including property which embodies a work of authorship. Once, there was no question that somebody who owned a book had a right to make a copy of it -- if he could afford to. The upper limit in complexity of what most people might try to duplicate at home is a bicycle. If you buy a bicycle, you can duplicate that bicycle, if you have the appropriate skills and bicycle parts. Making copies of houses is not a joke. I've seen many places where houses are exact copies of one another, and even lived in a dorm building that was an exact copy of another dorm building. Architecture is considered copyrightable, so I assume real houses are even copyrighted as derivative works of the copyrighted architectural blueprints that describe them. Analogies between physical property and copyright are really weak, so I think by now I prefer to see people questioning these analogies instead of trying to argue within them. The analogy is already biased in favor of the copyright owners, because almost all of the relevant laws which provide texture to the analogy are pieces of public policy meant to favor copyright owners at the expense of the public. We can argue very subjectively about houses and access to houses, but if these analogies were taken seriously, copyright would not exist in its present form. The whole idea of mentioning houses comes from the following idea on the MPAA's part: - People don't like to have their property stolen. - If we can convince people that copyright infringement is like having their property stolen, they will be sympathetic to us, and perhaps willing to endorse whatever measures we choose to fight copyright infringement. Under 17 USC 202, the MPAA member studios _have not_ sold you their house when they sell you a DVD. At best, they have rented it to you with a rather strict lease (far worse than a contract of adhesion because you never even have an opportunity to sign it or refuse to sign it) which dramatically limits some of what you might think of as ordinarily, harmless uses. Now, you know that some of the terms of that lease may be unenforceable, because landlords' legal right to set the terms of the use of their property are somewhat limited by law in some jurisdictions (17 USC 107-121). But still: the entire situation is created to benefit copyright owners. There are very few parts of the analogy which are in any way encouraging for the end-purchaser of the material, because the basic scenario is that the purchaser's rights _have been limited_ by the copyright statute. The purchaser can say that, if the analogy were perfect, the statute _would not_ have limited purchasers' rights that way. But the MPAA will just say that, within the analogy _actually created by the law_, the legal rights that exist are there for the benefit of the copyright owners. So your intuitions about houses don't help you. It seems better to argue that the analogy is absurd (and focus on what the law is and what the law ought to be) than to admit that the analogy is worthwhile and try to argue that the MPAA's misinterpreted it. Is that progress? The MPAA knows that copyright is not like owning a house. The public, perhaps, doesn't. The MPAA hopes that the public will be sympathetic to the idea that various things that might hurt the MPAA's interests are like breaking into a house. So people here hope that the public will be _more_ sympathetic to the idea that the DMCA is like locking people out of their own homes? We, like the MPAA, know that copyright isn't like owning a house. So why argue on the MPAA's terms? -- 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 Jun 6 15:27:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10630 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:27:08 -0400 Received: from fort-point-station.mit.edu (FORT-POINT-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.72.0.53]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10627 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:27:08 -0400 Received: from grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.34]) by fort-point-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA02442 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.45]) by grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA24741 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oobleck.mit.edu (OOBLECK.MIT.EDU [18.54.0.122]) by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA28385 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethf@localhost) by oobleck.mit.edu (8.9.3) id PAA05079; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006061928.PAA05079@oobleck.mit.edu> From: Seth Finkelstein To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-Reply-To: <20000606121853.Y2589@zork.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Seth David Schoen > We, like the MPAA, know that copyright isn't like owning a house. > So why argue on the MPAA's terms? If I can boil this down to a few words: The MPAA is flacking the "copying is theft" credo The reply is to invert that, roughly "copyright is becoming a police state" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Web Programmer sethf@mit.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 15:28:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10712 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:28:00 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10705 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:27:58 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zP2X-0002Qa-00; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:29:29 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:29:29 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000606122929.Z2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200006061847.OAA04999@oobleck.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 01:57:25PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky writes: > We press the sold point, and let some boneheaded lackey of the MPAA make > the "indefinitely leased" statement. I'm sure there are fine points on the > side of the MPAA in the matter of licensed vs sold, but .. > > I take this back. Let's create the more substantial working-through of > this > metaphor, with the twists and turns included; this will show the kind of > machinations the MPAA would like to get the public to be susceptible to.. > and we add it in a footnote accessible by link from the rebuttal doc. > Anyone who has the guts can read it. I just thought of one reason this analogy is so confusing. There are two different natural directions for it to go: - the "piracy is theft" direction ("people who misappropriate property are thieves") - the "first sale is copyright transfer" direction ("people who buy property are its rightful owners, and can do what they want with it") Obviously neither interpretation is supported by statute, but both sound fairly reasonable at first glance. You can take the first one further: "copy-protection schemes are like home security systems, and circumvention tools are like burglar's tools, and people who circumvent are like burglars, and ...". You can take the second one further, too: "by trying to control what we do with our property after we've purchased it, copyright holders are trying to prevent us from enjoying the right to make use of what we own". -- 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 Jun 6 15:38:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11161 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:38:00 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11158 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:37:58 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zPCD-0002SC-00; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:39:29 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:39:29 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000606123929.A2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000606121853.Y2589@zork.net> <200006061928.PAA05079@oobleck.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006061928.PAA05079@oobleck.mit.edu>; from sethf@MIT.EDU on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 03:28:42PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth Finkelstein writes: > > Seth David Schoen > > We, like the MPAA, know that copyright isn't like owning a house. > > So why argue on the MPAA's terms? > > If I can boil this down to a few words: > > The MPAA is flacking the "copying is theft" credo > The reply is to invert that, roughly "copyright is becoming a police state" OK. How about saying that, instead of talking about who owns the house? -- 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 Jun 6 15:42:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11305 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:42:48 -0400 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 PAA11302 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:42:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA14230 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:44:16 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:44:10 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-Reply-To: <20000606121853.Y2589@zork.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 Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > sparky writes: > > > What specific aspects of the house do we not own after having purchased > > it? better to know even if we don't worry about it in the Openlaw > > Rebuttal. > > The ability to make copies of the house is denied by law. > > With physical property, it's not ordinary illegal to make a copy (if > you also own suitable raw materials and tools). This is the default > situation with all physical property, including property which > embodies a work of authorship. Once, there was no question that > somebody who owned a book had a right to make a copy of it -- if he > could afford to. > > The upper limit in complexity of what most people might try to > duplicate at home is a bicycle. If you buy a bicycle, you can > duplicate that bicycle, if you have the appropriate skills and bicycle > parts. > > Making copies of houses is not a joke. I've seen many places where > houses are exact copies of one another, and even lived in a dorm > building that was an exact copy of another dorm building. > Architecture is considered copyrightable, so I assume real houses are > even copyrighted as derivative works of the copyrighted architectural > blueprints that describe them. > > Analogies between physical property and copyright are really weak, so > I think by now I prefer to see people questioning these analogies > instead of trying to argue within them. The analogy is already biased > in favor of the copyright owners, because almost all of the relevant > laws which provide texture to the analogy are pieces of public policy > meant to favor copyright owners at the expense of the public. > > We can argue very subjectively about houses and access to houses, but > if these analogies were taken seriously, copyright would not exist in > its present form. > > The whole idea of mentioning houses comes from the following idea on > the MPAA's part: > > - People don't like to have their property stolen. > - If we can convince people that copyright infringement is like having > their property stolen, they will be sympathetic to us, and perhaps > willing to endorse whatever measures we choose to fight copyright > infringement. One thing I would say here is that we make an effort to redirect the language away from "theft" and back to "fraud", a type of theft but subtly very different. Copyright infringement is a type of fraud after all, isn't it? > > Under 17 USC 202, the MPAA member studios _have not_ sold you their > house when they sell you a DVD. At best, they have rented it to you > with a rather strict lease (far worse than a contract of adhesion > because you never even have an opportunity to sign it or refuse to > sign it) which dramatically limits some of what you might think of as > ordinarily, harmless uses. I can see it: "Permutations of a Metaphor: a response to Jack Valenti". Upshot: DeCSS is not like the tool that breaks the lock on your house, it is like the tool that breaks the lock on your hotel room when the hotel owner has locked you out. > > Now, you know that some of the terms of that lease may be > unenforceable, because landlords' legal right to set the terms of the > use of their property are somewhat limited by law in some > jurisdictions (17 USC 107-121). > > But still: the entire situation is created to benefit copyright > owners. There are very few parts of the analogy which are in any way > encouraging for the end-purchaser of the material, because the basic > scenario is that the purchaser's rights _have been limited_ by the > copyright statute. > > The purchaser can say that, if the analogy were perfect, the statute > _would not_ have limited purchasers' rights that way. But the MPAA > will just say that, within the analogy _actually created by the law_, > the legal rights that exist are there for the benefit of the copyright > owners. So your intuitions about houses don't help you. > > It seems better to argue that the analogy is absurd (and focus on > what the law is and what the law ought to be) than to admit that > the analogy is worthwhile and try to argue that the MPAA's > misinterpreted it. Is that progress? > > The MPAA knows that copyright is not like owning a house. The public, > perhaps, doesn't. The MPAA hopes that the public will be sympathetic > to the idea that various things that might hurt the MPAA's interests > are like breaking into a house. So people here hope that the public > will be _more_ sympathetic to the idea that the DMCA is like locking > people out of their own homes? We, like the MPAA, know that copyright > isn't like owning a house. So why argue on the MPAA's terms? I think there's worth in arguing on the MPAA's "own terms", because they are not in control of their own terms - their terms are slippery and they have chosen them stupidly. If we pursue the metaphor, regardless of whether we stop at "DeCSS: tool that you use to break back into your own house" or "DeCSS: tool that lets you back into your hotel room which you thought was your house when you bought it" (just babbling there, don't take those summations seriously) the point is that the metaphor *does* attempt to draw a parallel between property and copyrightable works; to make fraud into theft. Don't get me wrong, I get your point and you are right: we don't want to make our arguments rest on the same parallel. Well and good. But we need to address this deceitful metaphor. We must only rework our response to it so that the MPAA is trapped by their metaphor and we are not. Again, we should make a fuller statement about the metaphor and the whole thorny property/works/theft/fraud hairball it raises. (Ever raised a hairball?) We should attach it to the rebuttal, as a footnote perhaps, or else we could make it a response of its own, responding to Valenti, who made the metaphor famous. sparky > > -- > 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 Jun 6 15:50:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11379 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:50:14 -0400 Received: from dial155.roadrunner.com (sf-du155.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11376 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:50:09 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial155.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01512 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:50:56 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:50:55 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000606135055.B1111@localhost> References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:53:41AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:53:41AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > There is a new declaration of Robert Schumann. It covers the > practicalities of usage of DeCSS, among other things. Evidently, > college students can download DVD movies in under 7 minutes. > > The declaration is available at: > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-sds.htm Too bad for them this isn't an infringement case. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 15:56:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11473 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:56:03 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11470 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:56:02 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:00:45 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D92@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:00:44 -0400 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 A few random points: 1. On DeCSS use to copy rather than play back. All DVD players are required to make an unencrypted copy of a work during playback. DeCSS makes the copy persistent. I've seen this argument used in legal action on reverse engineering, claiming that the copy in RAM accessed by a debugger is unauthorized. 2. On the threat of DeCSS Most of the compression systems he cites (such as mp3) are "lossy" compressions, and so even if data were pirated with them, it would not represent perfect copies. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 15:59:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11523 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:59:35 -0400 Received: from dial155.roadrunner.com (sf-du155.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11518 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:59:33 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial155.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01560 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:01:44 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:01:43 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000606140142.C1111@localhost> References: <20000606113758.X2589@zork.net> <20000606121853.Y2589@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000606121853.Y2589@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 12:18:53PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Not trying to get involved in a long discussion here, but there is one comment on §202 I wanted to make. On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: [ ... ] > Under 17 USC 202, the MPAA member studios _have not_ sold you their > house when they sell you a DVD. At best, they have rented it to you > with a rather strict lease (far worse than a contract of adhesion > because you never even have an opportunity to sign it or refuse to > sign it) which dramatically limits some of what you might think of as > ordinarily, harmless uses. It isn't clear to me that 202 says the copyright owner is also the owner of the work. It says ownership or interest in the work is _not_ part of a sale of a copy, not that copyright confers ownership of the work. [ and some stuff about copies not conveying with copyright ] Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 16:00:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11564 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:00:24 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11561 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:00:23 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:05:06 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D93@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:05:05 -0400 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 As a historical note, during the 19th century engineers used to patent truss arrangements in bridges. I have no doubt that if arches or flying buttresses were invented today, they would be at least copyrightable, if not patentable. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 16:09:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11756 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:09:20 -0400 Received: from dial155.roadrunner.com (sf-du155.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11753 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:09:18 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial155.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01568 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:11:33 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:11:32 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000606141132.D1111@localhost> References: <200006061847.OAA04999@oobleck.mit.edu> <20000606122929.Z2589@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000606122929.Z2589@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 12:29:29PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 12:29:29PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > sparky writes: > > > We press the sold point, and let some boneheaded lackey of the MPAA make > > the "indefinitely leased" statement. I'm sure there are fine points on the > > side of the MPAA in the matter of licensed vs sold, but .. > > > > I take this back. Let's create the more substantial working-through of > > this > > metaphor, with the twists and turns included; this will show the kind of > > machinations the MPAA would like to get the public to be susceptible to.. > > and we add it in a footnote accessible by link from the rebuttal doc. > > Anyone who has the guts can read it. > > I just thought of one reason this analogy is so confusing. > > There are two different natural directions for it to go: > > - the "piracy is theft" direction ("people who misappropriate property > are thieves") > - the "first sale is copyright transfer" direction ("people who buy > property are its rightful owners, and can do what they want with it") First sale is (in part) the (implicit) conferral of fair use? Publication is probably the conferral of non-copyright use. > Obviously neither interpretation is supported by statute, but both > sound fairly reasonable at first glance. > > You can take the first one further: "copy-protection schemes are like > home security systems, and circumvention tools are like burglar's > tools, and people who circumvent are like burglars, and ...". > > You can take the second one further, too: "by trying to control what > we do with our property after we've purchased it, copyright holders > are trying to prevent us from enjoying the right to make use of what > we own". The other big problem is stuffing two things, the copy and the work, into one object -- the house. The whole problem here is that the MPAA are trying to say access control is necessary for rights protection -- so any circumvention of access control should be banned. But there are lots of uses behind access control that are fair or non-copyright. In addition to ignoring those uses, the MPAAs access/circumvention analysis pretends that by letting people through their own "carefully" designed measures, they can prevent violation of exclusive rights, which is false. Technical access control measures after first-sale do not result in technical control over rights management. Any time you show someone something, they can copy it. It doesn't matter is the widget is licensed by the DVDCCA or the Elks Club. Someone saw it. Access control != rights management, no matter how much the MPAA wishes this were true. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 16:09:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11798 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:09:54 -0400 Received: from MIT.EDU (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.28]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA11795 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:09:54 -0400 Received: from GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA14427; Tue, 6 Jun 00 16:11:39 EDT Received: from melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.45]) by grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA08417 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oobleck.mit.edu (OOBLECK.MIT.EDU [18.54.0.122]) by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA12688 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethf@localhost) by oobleck.mit.edu (8.9.3) id QAA05151; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006062011.QAA05151@oobleck.mit.edu> From: Seth Finkelstein To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-Reply-To: <20000606123929.A2589@zork.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >> Seth Finkelstein writes: >> The MPAA is flacking the "copying is theft" credo >> The reply is to invert that, roughly "copyright is becoming a police state" > Seth David Schoen > OK. How about saying that, instead of talking about who owns the house? The point is that the house analogy can be used to illustrate either idea. That is: > You can take the first one further: "copy-protection schemes are like > home security systems, and circumvention tools are like burglar's > tools, and people who circumvent are like burglars, and ...". > > You can take the second one further, too: "by trying to control what > we do with our property after we've purchased it, copyright holders > are trying to prevent us from enjoying the right to make use of what > we own". "... like trying to prevent us from entering our house without reading their ads or not at permitted times". The analogy is a way of making the point. The "copyright is becoming a police state" idea is good for an essay (I wish I had a good platform for such a thing - nobody seems to have really noticed that we now have _de facto_ ISP registration by law). However, I think it's too much of a general topic for an MPAA rebuttal, even if that idea infuses such a rebuttal. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Web Programmer sethf@mit.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 16:11:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11840 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:11:17 -0400 Received: from dial155.roadrunner.com (sf-du155.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11837 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:11:14 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial155.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01602 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:13:25 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:13:23 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000606141323.A1593@localhost> References: <20000606121853.Y2589@zork.net> <200006061928.PAA05079@oobleck.mit.edu> <20000606123929.A2589@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000606123929.A2589@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 12:39:29PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 12:39:29PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Seth Finkelstein writes: > > > > Seth David Schoen > > > We, like the MPAA, know that copyright isn't like owning a house. > > > So why argue on the MPAA's terms? > > > > If I can boil this down to a few words: > > > > The MPAA is flacking the "copying is theft" credo > > The reply is to invert that, roughly "copyright is becoming a police state" > > OK. How about saying that, instead of talking about who owns the > house? Much better. Copyright is a regulation of speech. Over-regulation of speech is though control/police state. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 16:14:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11935 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:14:26 -0400 Received: from dial155.roadrunner.com (sf-du155.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11932 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:14:23 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial155.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01611 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:16:35 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:16:35 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000606141634.B1593@localhost> References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D92@c100.clearway.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D92@c100.clearway.com>; from Ray@clearway.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 04:00:44PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 04:00:44PM -0400, Leland Ray wrote: > > A few random points: > > 1. On DeCSS use to copy rather than play back. > > All DVD players are required to make an unencrypted copy > of a work during playback. DeCSS makes the copy persistent. I fell down this rat-hole once. Copyright doesn't care about "persistent", it cares about more than transient duration -- long enough to be perceived. > I've seen this argument used in legal action on reverse > engineering, claiming that the copy in RAM accessed by a > debugger is unauthorized. > > > 2. On the threat of DeCSS > > Most of the compression systems he cites (such as mp3) > are "lossy" compressions, and so even if data were pirated > with them, it would not represent perfect copies. The digital copies are perfect argument is a red herring. It doesn't matter what format the data beings life as -- if you can measure it, you can digitize it. After that point they're all the same. The argument applies equally well to VCR recordings, and ink on paper books. Perhaps we should outlaw keyboards as they are book piracy devices? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 17:31:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12604 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:31:23 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12601 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:31:21 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (jeffw@firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11019 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:32:52 -0400 Message-ID: <393D6DF2.E3630CBC@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:32:34 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15pre19-dvd i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D92@c100.clearway.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 Leland Ray wrote: 2. On the threat of DeCSS > > Most of the compression systems he cites (such as mp3) > are "lossy" compressions, and so even if data were pirated > with them, it would not represent perfect copies. I don't know where you're going with this. dvd's employ mpeg2 (mp2) as opposed to mpeg3 (mp3) both of which are lossy compression schemes. If you re-encode from the output of the decode, then likely there will be degradation, but in neither case do you need to do this. -Jeff From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 17:49:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12789 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:49:00 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12786 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:48:59 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22116 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:50:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393D6524.CCBF720A@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:55:00 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q6 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'd like to address question six. The MPAA says: A: The motion picture studios' position on copyright protection is not a new one. Copyright protection is a principle established in the United States Constitution ... This should not go unrebutted. The Constitution provides for copyright, not "copyright protection." The phrase "copyright protection" is an industry-created phrase designed to blur the lines between the concepts of copyright and copy protection, and I would argue that the DMCA is a law designed to blur the same lines. Copyright requires fair use in order to be constitutional. Copy protection is a technical means of preventing, among other things, fair use. Thus a legal blanket-prohibition on circumvention of copy protection is not supported by the spirit or letter of the copyright clause. Copyright and copy protection are two different concepts, with different purposes. Copyright is intended to facilitate public access to works, while copy protection is intended to restrict public access to works. Much as the MPAA would like to combine the two into a new concept of "copyright protection", combining the legal coercion of copyright with the technical coercion of copy protection, they should not be allowed to argue, unchallenged, that this concept is supported by the Constitution. - John From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 17:56:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12930 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:56:01 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12927 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:56:00 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA30434 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:57:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:57:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q6 In-Reply-To: <393D6524.CCBF720A@uic.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 Tue, 6 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: > Copyright requires fair use in order to be constitutional. Copy It's worth noting given who's arguments we're rebutting that fair use is also not the only limitation on copyright that's required in order for copyright law to be constitutional. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 17:58:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13090 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:58:55 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA13087 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:58:54 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:00:53 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C0D@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: TECH: RE: [dvd-discuss] Technical questions? Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:00:43 -0700 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 If you are noticing "a lot of inconsistancies when it comes to technical matters" it may be because we don't know the questions to ask, so waiting for the list members to ask you the "right" question may be a waste of time. If you see something you consider to be an inconsistancy, please clear it up w/o waiting for some sort of official invitation. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: matthew.r.pavlovich.1 [mailto:mpav@purdue.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:19 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Technical questions? > > > Hello-- > > I am Matt Pavlovich, and I founded the Linux Video and DVD > Project, and > the OpenDVD Group. > > I have been lurking through the mailing list archives for a > while (due to > my reluctance to punish my e-mail box further) and have > noticed a lot of > inconsistancies when it comes to technical matters. > > Currently, I am providing the EFF with technical expertise in > the NY DMCA > trial, and the CA trade secret case (which I am also a > defendant). I'd be > more than happy to help clear up any technical confusion that > may exist. > > If you have a question, feel free to drop me a note, or put > TECH: in the > subject, and my filter will pick that message out of this list. > > Regards, > Matthew R. Pavlovich > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 18:05:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA13401 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:05:33 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA13398 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:05:32 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:07:31 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C0E@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ - #7 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:07:28 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Taylor [mailto:bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com] > For example, the MPAA implies that the RE exceptions only applies > when "a lawful user of a computer program" reverse engineerings "to > ensure that the program can work with other programs". This is > wrong in that they incorrectly attempt to restrict the exception by > asserting that the reverse engineered program must be among the > interoperating ones. The statue says otherwise in each of > (f)(1,2,3): one need only enable "interoperability of an > independently created computer program with **OTHER** programs" > (emphasis added). The reverse engineered program does not itself > have to be one of the interoperating programs. The MPAA again > neglects the case where the exchanging of information constitues a > fair use passing of their works between 'other' programs not under > their control. Let's bring the point home a little more strongly: the purpose of RE may be to create a program that effectively -replaces- the program that has been reverse engineered. This goal in no way violates the law as stated, but is completely at odds with the MPAA's statement that goal of RE is to ensure that the target program can work with others. It is a quite reasonable goal of RE to create a -replacement- for the target program, in which case the goal is to ensure that the replacement the target program works with others that the original had worked with. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 18:13:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA13466 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:13:46 -0400 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA13463 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:13:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20000606221450.18572.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:14:50 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:14:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 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: > Under 17 USC 202, the MPAA member studios _have not_ sold you their > house when they sell you a DVD. At best, they have rented it to you > with a rather strict lease (far worse than a contract of adhesion > because you never even have an opportunity to sign it or refuse to > sign it) which dramatically limits some of what you might think of as > ordinarily, harmless uses. Can you clarify this? I think what you are saying is that the MPAA has sold you a copy of the work, not the work. Or are you saying that you don't actually own the copy? The "it's a licence not a sale" idea is just a play on words designed to do an end around to the principle of First Sale. When I leave the store, my receipt appears indistinguishable from any other contract of sale. This sort of thing was first attempted in IP in the early 1900's. There is an explicit rejection of it in the case Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 (1913) in the context of patents. "[T]o call the sale a license to use is a mere play upon words." This case mirros and clarifies Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (S. Ct. 1908) in the context of copyright. There's some case involving Microsoft that I need to dig up that revived the "it's a licence not a sale" mumbo-jumbo, but I believe this case came before section 117 was added to title 17, when it wasn't clear that computer programs were protected by copyright, or rather when it wasn't clear that you could INSTALL them without commiting copyright infringement, since this requires making a copy. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 18:23:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA13652 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:23:47 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA13649 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:23:47 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26205 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:25:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393D6D4C.980989BD@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 16:29:49 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 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 MPAA knows that copyright is not like owning a house. The public, > perhaps, doesn't. The MPAA hopes that the public will be sympathetic > to the idea that various things that might hurt the MPAA's interests > are like breaking into a house. A better analogy is that you purchase a automobile from a manufacturer that has entered into an exclusive contract with a chain of service stations to maintain and service the cars that they manufacture. The hood of the car contains a lock. Keys are only issued to the licensed service stations. You, the owner of the car, "break into" the hood in order to save money by changing the fluids and filters yourself, instead of paying a licensed service station to do it for you. The automobile manufacturer complains that you are "hurting their interests." This analogy might better explain to the public the "interests" that the MPAA claim are being injured. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 18:38:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA13850 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:38:48 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA13847 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:38:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20000606223952.18389.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:39:52 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:39:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 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: > First sale is (in part) the (implicit) conferral of fair use? > Publication is probably the conferral of non-copyright use. I just read HARPER & ROW v. NATION ENTERPRISES 471 U.S. 539 (1985) again. There is some really excellent dicta regarding exactly your points at the start of section III A. Here's a link to the relevent page: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=539#549 Choice quotes: "Fair use was traditionally defined as 'a privilege in others than the owner of the copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without his consent.'" "[T]he author's consent to a reasonable use of his copyrighted works ha[d] always been implied by the courts as a necessary incident of the constitutional policy of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, since a prohibition of such use would inhibit subsequent writers from attempting to improve upon prior works and thus . . . frustrate the very ends sought to be attained" Kind of nuke's the MPAA's idea that all 'unauthorized' copying is illegal. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 19:02:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA14049 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:02:20 -0400 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA14046 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:02:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20000606230324.5288.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 16:03:24 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:03:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 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: > Much better. Copyright is a regulation of speech. Over-regulation of > speech is though control/police state. HARPER & ROW v. NATION ENTERPRISES 471 U.S. 539 (1985) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=539 "[C]opyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. " Holding (c) refers to "the First Amendment's protections embodied in the Act's distinction between copyrightable expression and uncopyrightable facts and ideas". This principle is the foundation for all reverse engineering: the facts and ideas are usable, not by fair use, but because they are 'uncopyrightable'. It's part of the *HOLDING* that this is a First Amendment freedom. It also raises an interesting question: do the exceptions to 1201, [(f) and (g) especially] use the least restrictive means. Could Congress not have relied on the free market to produce anti-piracy solutions for copyright holders? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 19:06:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA14193 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:06:37 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.186.16]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA14190 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:06:36 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26531; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:07:39 -0400 Message-Id: <200006062307.TAA26531@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:44:10 CDT." Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:07:09 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky writes: : One thing I would say here is that we make an effort to redirect the : language away from "theft" and back to "fraud", a type of theft but subtly : very different. Copyright infringement is a type of fraud after all, isn't : it? No. No false of deceptive statements are made by a copyright infringer. Copyright infringement is forbidden only by statute and does not resemble any wrong recognized by the common law. It certainly does not resemble fraud or deceit. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 19:22:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA14360 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:22:05 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA14357 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:22:04 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00409 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:23:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393D7AF7.1E8709D@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:28:07 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 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 Try this analogy. You have purchased a house. However, after payment, the contractor refuses to give you the keys. Instead, he hires an employee to stand near your house, gives him the keys, and tells you that whenever you wish to enter your own house, and the contractor agrees to allow you to enter your own house, this authorized employee will open the door for you. In this context, the MPAA answer is correct: "DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 19:59:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA14551 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:59:40 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.186.16]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA14548 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:59:38 -0400 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26675; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:00:41 -0400 Message-Id: <200006070000.UAA26675@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q6 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:55:00 CDT." <393D6524.CCBF720A@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 20:00:11 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Schulien writes: : I'd like to address question six. : : The MPAA says: : : A: The motion picture studios' position on copyright protection is not a : new one. Copyright protection is a principle established in the United : States Constitution ... : : This should not go unrebutted. The Constitution provides for copyright, : not "copyright protection." The : phrase "copyright protection" is an industry-created phrase designed to : blur the lines between the : concepts of copyright and copy protection, and I would argue that the : DMCA is a law designed to : blur the same lines. Be careful here. The copyright act does refer to the protection of copyright Act. In particular Section 102(b) refers to all sorts of things, including ideas, that are not entitled to copyright protection. Here is Section 102 of the Copyright Act § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 20:05:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14718 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:05:47 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14715 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:05:46 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:07:46 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C11@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:07:43 -0700 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 This is a useful analogy. Can we maintain it? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: John Schulien [mailto:jms@uic.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 2:30 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 > > > > The MPAA knows that copyright is not like owning a house. > The public, > > > perhaps, doesn't. The MPAA hopes that the public will be > sympathetic > > to the idea that various things that might hurt the MPAA's interests > > are like breaking into a house. > > A better analogy is that you purchase a automobile from a manufacturer > that > has entered into an exclusive contract with a chain of > service stations > to > maintain and service the cars that they manufacture. The hood of the > car > contains a lock. Keys are only issued to the licensed > service stations. > > You, the owner of the car, "break into" the hood in order to > save money > by changing the fluids and filters yourself, instead of paying a > licensed > service station to do it for you. > > The automobile manufacturer complains that you are "hurting their > interests." > > This analogy might better explain to the public the > "interests" that the > MPAA > claim are being injured. > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 20:27:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA15108 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:27:50 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA15105 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:27:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA30993; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:28:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:28:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q6 In-Reply-To: <200006070000.UAA26675@samsara.law.cwru.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 Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Peter D. Junger wrote: > John Schulien writes: > > : I'd like to address question six. > : > : The MPAA says: > : > : A: The motion picture studios' position on copyright protection is not a > : new one. Copyright protection is a principle established in the United > : States Constitution ... > : > : This should not go unrebutted. The Constitution provides for copyright, > : not "copyright protection." The > : phrase "copyright protection" is an industry-created phrase designed to > : blur the lines between the > : concepts of copyright and copy protection, and I would argue that the > : DMCA is a law designed to > : blur the same lines. > > Be careful here. > > The copyright act does refer to the protection of copyright Act. In > particular Section 102(b) refers to all sorts of things, including ideas, > that are not entitled to copyright protection. Well I have to disagree. First, it's entirely possible for the Congress to pass a copyright law that is in itself unconstitutional. The Constitution says that Congress _can_ (not has to) create copyrights, but only insofar as they don't conflict with the other parts of the copyright clause. (i.e. promote the useful arts and sciences, assigned to their creators, limited times) What John is saying (I think) is that while there are copyrights, the Constitution says nothing about how draconian the protection of copyright may be, and between the limitations of the copyright clause and the first amendment I would argue that it leans away from extremely tight controls. And so John's idea of 'copyright protection' and the first thing that comes to my mind as well is not copyright law in general (or your interpretation: which classes of works can be copyrighted and gain legal protection and which classes cannot gain legal protection) but some particular copy prevention mechanism or software. Like CSS. (aside from the copy/access thing) And this does deserve to be addressed b/c wholesale copy protection prevents the exercise of fair use and copying the work when it enters the public domain. This doesn't strike me as complying with the spirit of the copyright clause. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 20:48:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA15393 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:48:54 -0400 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA15390 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:48:52 -0400 Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:49:55 -0700 Received: from pchecker (pchecker.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.254.128]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 35-62055U1500L100S0V35) with SMTP id gov for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:49:57 -0700 Message-Id: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: richard_hecker@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:53:47 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Richard A. Hecker" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 >Already working on a reply, which I gladly submit to Openlaw Rewrite Press. :) >http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm, if anyone >feels like joining in. Good start. In item 7 his claim, "A 5 gigabyte DVD disc image can be transferred over a 100 Mbps ethernet link in under 7 minutes", is ludicrous. He assumes a pathological case that does not exist. He ignores overhead, network contention, etc... To refute this claim I would pick a 5 mile stretch of NY Street as an example (the more renowned the better ;-). I would compare his 7 minutes with the 10 minutes the judge would need to drive this 26400 feet at 30 mph. Obviously, this requires every stop light to be green when you get to the intersection. It also assumes every driver will leave a clear path for you to continue unimpeded at the 30 mph speed. Richard From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 21:00:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA15545 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:00:37 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA15542 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:00:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA31093 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:01:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:01:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> 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 Amazingly he's more or less correct in that claim. While he's attempting to get us to infer that he is discussing a 100Mb internet connection he actually is discussing a 100Mb Ethernet link. These are pretty common. And it's not at all impossible to get 1000Mb ethernets. So if you were transferring the content of a DVD over a 100Mb _LAN_ he's right. But the much smaller number of people capable of accessing other nodes on the LAN as opposed to the internet makes this considerably less damaging than he'd like us to think. (Judge: so the defendant made the movie available for easy, fast download to an audience of two other people, none of whom can easily share it outside of this group...) And yes, you're never going to get perfect ethernet connections; it's actually a little inefficient with the packet collisions. Ethernet scales well which is the great advantage of the stuff. On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Richard A. Hecker wrote: > >Already working on a reply, which I gladly submit to Openlaw Rewrite Press. :) > > >http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm, if anyone > >feels like joining in. > > Good start. In item 7 his claim, "A 5 gigabyte DVD disc image can be > transferred over a 100 Mbps ethernet link in under 7 minutes", is > ludicrous. He > assumes a pathological case that does not exist. He ignores overhead, network > contention, etc... > > To refute this claim I would pick a 5 mile stretch of NY Street as an > example (the > more renowned the better ;-). I would compare his 7 minutes with the 10 > minutes > the judge would need to drive this 26400 feet at 30 mph. Obviously, this > requires > every stop light to be green when you get to the intersection. It also assumes > every driver will leave a clear path for you to continue unimpeded at the > 30 mph > speed. > > Richard > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 22:14:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA16026 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:14:52 -0400 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 WAA16022 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:14:51 -0400 Received: from [38.32.11.167] (helo=ip167.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 12zVOL-00054P-00; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:16:26 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 22:10:38 -0400 Message-ID: References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D92@c100.clearway.com> <393D6DF2.E3630CBC@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <393D6DF2.E3630CBC@mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 WAA16023 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:32:34 -0400, Jeff Waller wrote: >Leland Ray wrote: > >2. On the threat of DeCSS > >> >> Most of the compression systems he cites (such as mp3) >> are "lossy" compressions, and so even if data were pirated >> with them, it would not represent perfect copies. > >I don't know where you're going with this. dvd's employ >mpeg2 (mp2) as opposed to mpeg3 (mp3) both of which are > lossy compression schemes. If you re-encode from the >output of the decode, then likely there will be degradation, >but in neither case do you need to do this. Well, the MPAA often refers to DVD as 'a digital master' when the original assets--whether D-1, D-5, Avid, Discreet, mini-DV or whatever non-lossy file formats they begin with are really that. MPEG, with its I-Frames, P-Frames, and B-Frames loses enough information that it shouldn't be really considered a master. MPEG is a delivery format, not a production one. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 22:14:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA16033 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:14:54 -0400 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 WAA16027 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:14:52 -0400 Received: from [38.32.11.167] (helo=ip167.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 12zVON-00054P-00; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:16:28 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q6 Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 22:10:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: <393D6524.CCBF720A@uic.edu> In-Reply-To: <393D6524.CCBF720A@uic.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 WAA16031 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:55:00 -0500, John Schulien wrote: >Copyright and copy protection are two different concepts, with different >purposes. Copyright is >intended to facilitate public access to works, while copy protection is >intended to restrict public >access to works. Much as the MPAA would like to combine the two into a >new concept of >"copyright protection", combining the legal coercion of copyright with >the technical coercion of >copy protection, they should not be allowed to argue, unchallenged, that >this concept is >supported by the Constitution. It's also a limited monopoly. I'd like to know how the DVD I purchase today will be 'unprotected' at the end of its term. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 22:14:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA16041 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:14:56 -0400 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 WAA16038 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:14:55 -0400 Received: from [38.32.11.167] (helo=ip167.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 12zVOP-00054P-00; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:16:29 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 22:10:42 -0400 Message-ID: <70arjs4ld5qng9aivj8orl97nkdc9mmlnb@4ax.com> References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 WAA16039 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:11:40 -0500 (CDT), sparky wrote: >http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm, if anyone >feels like joining in. To be honest, I started it mainly to blow off >steam, but what they hey. > [re: Schumann #7] A seven minute DVD delivery assumes that there are no T-1 or T-3 bottlenecks between client and server. Also ideal fast ethernet data rates would be subject to actual real world multiple-user conditions. I think one T-1 in between would make the download take about 7 1/2 hours (please check my math.) This is of course about the best one could expect from cable or DSL as well. There goes your threat for even lossy MPEG-2 piracy. Of course, Real Networks [much like MPEG-4 "DiVX" [why did they have to call it that?]] is also working on better streaming video. Is it any mystery that a security vendor sees threats all around? His statement begs the question: perhaps the movie industry should rethink the digital distribution model rather than try to remake world law (and law enforcement) to fit a business decision. After all digital production is already saving millions for them. Perhaps DVD movies are a mistake. I read the Tom Cruise flick brought in $78 million a week ago, with no digital version available. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 22:28:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA16252 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:28:26 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f121.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA16249 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:28:25 -0400 Received: (qmail 61096 invoked by uid 0); 7 Jun 2000 02:29:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20000607022930.61095.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 63.205.56.199 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:29:30 PDT X-Originating-IP: [63.205.56.199] From: "Richard Ramos" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 02:29:30 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >I don't know where you're going with this. dvd's employ >mpeg2 (mp2) as opposed to mpeg3 (mp3) both of which are > lossy compression schemes. If you re-encode from the >output of the decode, then likely there will be degradation, >but in neither case do you need to do this. Just a quick clarification, its not mpeg3. It MPEG Audio Layer 3 that is the mp3 format. Richard Ramos Crazed376@hotmail.com ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 22:44:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA16374 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:44:08 -0400 Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA16371 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:44:07 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inig2b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.64.75]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA29979 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:45:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006070245.WAA29979@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 22:44:30 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Hearing on MPAA Motion to Close Depositions In-Reply-To: References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> 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 a hearing today in SDNY on the MPAA motion to bar public and press access to depositions, after arguments by MPAA, 2600, the Times Mirror for Newsday, the Village Voice and Mike Godwin (for himself only, Declan McCullagh was not granted leave to intervene), Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled: 1. Because he had approved the confidentiality stipulation between parties yesterday that was no longer an issue for the hearing. 2. Stipulated confidential information includes: that which could lead to harm of a depondent; trade or business secrets; information on present or future encryption protection measures. Excluded is information or testimony that is embarrassing to depondents. 3. Judge Kaplan emphasized that protection of encryption information is limited to the discovery phase since such information is the heart of the suit and is therefore likely to become public during trial. 4. As a result of today's arguments, the terms of the stipulation will be modified in lieu of a blanket protective order, as follows: 5. Publicly released material can be posted to the Internet as with any other medium. 6. The press and public will not be allowed to sit in on depositions. 7. Depositions of "prominent" depondents such as Jack Valenti, Michael Eisner (or his substitute) and Fritz Attaway (head of DVD CCA) shall be excised of stipulated confidential information and released to the public within three (3) days. (Jack Valenti was deposed this morning in Washington D.C. and that material shall be treated as set forth by today's ruling.) 8. Parties may propose additional "prominent" depondents to the Court for consideration. 9. Videotape of depositions shall be treated the same as text. (The Valenti deposition was videotaped.) 10. Depositions of "non-prominent" depondents shall be excised of confidential information and released to the pulbic within ten (10) days. 11. Judge Kaplan will be available to promptly adjudicate disputes on designation of confidentiality, but said that plaintiffs and defendants will be subject to harshest sanctions if he finds that there is a deliberate effort to abuse designation of confidentiality or to otherwise inhibit speedy trial preparation. A hearing on discovery is scheduled for Thursday, June 8, 2000. ----- The courtroom had more people than previous hearings I have attended. In addition to the five legal teams, in attendance was Wendy Seltzer of OpenLaw, Declan McCullagh of Wired, Cark Kaplan of the New York Times, Jeff Howe of the Village Voice, Rita Ciolli of Newsday, Dave Buchwald and John Katz and Mollie X, Deborah Natsios (my partner), 3 or 4 observers from Proskauer and a half dozen other scribblers and secret agents of unknown identity. Judge Kaplan was marginally less hostile to the defense but regularly admonished Marty Garbus who as ever was unfazed. (These exchanges are quite admirable swordplay.) Kaplan was genial and even humorous for a change and threatened the lawyers only once with fire and brimstone for refusing to ease up on harassing each other (applying the metaphor of two scorpions in a bottle fighting to the death). He thundered that there is rule which allows him to personally charge a miscreant with the financial cost of delay which he will invoke with pleasure if required. Proskauer complained that their filings appear on the Internet within a day or two of submission. Kaplan said get used to it, that's the way the world now works, that now even judge's financial statements are on the Internet. (He didn't say that the judicial conference arranged APB's insolvency with the wiseguys at Gambino's across the park.) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 22:59:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA16489 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:59:06 -0400 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 WAA16486 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:59:06 -0400 Received: from 207-172-50-109.s363.tnt7.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([207.172.50.109]) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12zW58-0004SR-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:00:39 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <393D6DF2.E3630CBC@mindspring.com> References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D92@c100.clearway.com> <393D6DF2.E3630CBC@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:59:11 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Jeremy Erwin Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 >Leland Ray wrote: >2. On the threat of DeCSS > > > > Most of the compression systems he cites (such as mp3) > > are "lossy" compressions, and so even if data were pirated > > with them, it would not represent perfect copies. >I don't know where you're going with this. dvd's employ >mpeg2 (mp2) as opposed to mpeg3 (mp3) both of which are > lossy compression schemes. If you re-encode from the >output of the decode, then likely there will be degradation, >but in neither case do you need to do this. >-Jeff It may be appropriate to mention that the home page of the Moving Pictures Expert Group (MPEG) is located at http://www.cselt.it/mpeg/ First of all, MP3 does not stand for MPEG-3. It stands for MPEG-Audio Layer III, and describes an a method of encoding mono and stereo soundtracks. (Sometimes with conjunction with MPEG-1 compressed video. The maximum bitrate of MPEG-1 files is about 1.5 Mb/sec. from: http://www.tnt.uni-hannover.de/project/mpeg/audio/ MPEG-1 Audio (ISO/IEC 11172-3) provides single-channel ('mono') and two-channel ('stereo' or 'dual mono') coding at 32, 44.1, and 48 kHz sampling rate. The predefined bit rates range from 32 to 448 kbit/s for Layer I, from 32 to 384 kbit/s for Layer II, and from 32 to 320 kbit/s for Layer III. MPEG-2 describes a method of encoding video sequences and is used for DVD and HDTV.The audio layer is often used in European DVDs in lieu of AC3, and can encode up to 7.1 channels. MPEG-3 was used for HDTV applications,and leter folded into MPEG-2. MPEG-4 is a standard for web based multimedia. Some people have used the DIVX format (not to be confused with the collapsed Circuit-City pay per view scheme.) This theoretically can give compression ratios of 10:1. A 9 Gb Movie could be reduced to 900 Mb. The quality of a DIVX encoded movie is somewhat dubious, and since the compression is lossy, does not represent "an exact copy." To a certain extent, DVD is to DIVX as CD-Audio is to MP3. I don't know much about MPEG-7, which is a multimedia specification. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 23:26:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA17044 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:26:06 -0400 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 XAA17041 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:26:05 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max02-18.suba.com [206.69.121.82]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA00756 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:27:38 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: TECH: RE: [dvd-discuss] Technical questions? Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:27:04 -0500 Message-ID: <000601bfd030$408aa960$527945ce@bugbug> 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: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C0D@mail2.onetouch.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 Hear hear. Also, if you have the time, there are technical parts of the openlaw dvd faq which is at http://www.cssfaq.org/dvd-discuss-faq.html, which we could use help on. Contact Paul Fenimore (if he hasn't contacted you already) to ask which are in most dire need. sparky > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Richard > Hartman > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 5:01 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: TECH: RE: [dvd-discuss] Technical questions? > > > If you are noticing "a lot of inconsistancies when it > comes to technical matters" it may be because we don't > know the questions to ask, so waiting for the list > members to ask you the "right" question may be a waste > of time. If you see something you consider to be an > inconsistancy, please clear it up w/o waiting for some > sort of official invitation. > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: matthew.r.pavlovich.1 [mailto:mpav@purdue.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:19 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Technical questions? > > > > > > Hello-- > > > > I am Matt Pavlovich, and I founded the Linux Video and DVD > > Project, and > > the OpenDVD Group. > > > > I have been lurking through the mailing list archives for a > > while (due to > > my reluctance to punish my e-mail box further) and have > > noticed a lot of > > inconsistancies when it comes to technical matters. > > > > Currently, I am providing the EFF with technical expertise in > > the NY DMCA > > trial, and the CA trade secret case (which I am also a > > defendant). I'd be > > more than happy to help clear up any technical confusion that > > may exist. > > > > If you have a question, feel free to drop me a note, or put > > TECH: in the > > subject, and my filter will pick that message out of this list. > > > > Regards, > > Matthew R. Pavlovich > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 23:29:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA17136 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:29:56 -0400 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 XAA17133 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:29:54 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA21998 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:31:28 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:31:28 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:53:41AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The new declaration is quite good in spots. I think we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge where he's scoring points technically while we're busy pointing out where he's intentionally misleading. I apologize if I treat anybody's arguments too harshly. I don't mean to shoot down anybody's arguments, but I hope that any defense arguments should be able to withstand my abuse if they're going to stand up against the MPAA. 3. Defendants claim that there is no evidence of copying or piracy as a result of the use of DeCSS. In doing so, defendants ignore one fundamental truth which is inescapable - - that DeCSS is designed and functions to decrypt and copy the DVD content to the computer hard drive. This is misleading. He's claiming that a user's copy to a hard drive, which would fall easily under fair use, somehow nullifies the argument that DeCSS is pointless for _copyright_ _infringement_. 0 points. Indeed, as I noted, "[s]uch copying is not an essential step to decryption or viewing of CSS-protected DVD content and would not be desirable from a functional standpoint if the purpose of the utility was to allow playback rather than copying." He's saying that decrypted DVD files have no legitimate use; it's easy to defeat this by pointing out that development of unlicensed players as well as various "fair use" sampling-type acts are legitimate uses of decrypted files. 0 points. 5. As explained below, the explosive growth of the Internet as a means to 'pirate' copyrighted works of entertainment does not depend, at all, upon the creation of counterfeit discs but, instead, relies entirely on computer-based storage and file transfer technologies, without the need to ever reduce the unauthorized copy to a physical disc, such as a DVD or CD. Here he says that the impracticality of burning to DVD-R / DVD-RW isn't important because of the danger of internet-only distribution. I guess our argument that copying DVD-to-DVD is impossible is pretty strong, since this is the last time he mentions it. In any case, I'm going to give him 5 points just for pointing out that an essential step to open-format, super-compressed internet piracy is the stripping of the encryption. 6. Even more threatening, however, is the emergence of high ratio compression technologies, such as DivX. This compression technology enables users to take a full length movie and "shrink" it considerably in size, far reducing the amount of storage space and transfer time required to make a movie available on the Internet. [...] While I personally doubt that new ways to compress video enough to make internet piracy plausible are just over the horizon, I guess this is worth 5 points just because it's muddying the waters just enough for a judge to believe. 7. Moreover, while the various examples cited in defendants' papers rely on fairly low bandwidth devices, such as 56K modem connections, the real users of these technologies already enjoy and have access to systems of far greater bandwidth. For example, most colleges and universities provide 100Mbps ethernet connections to all dorm rooms, and the cost of 100 Mbps ethernet adaptors for PCs is well under $30. A 5 gigabyte DVD disc image can be transferred over a 100 Mbps ethernet link in under 7 minutes, and can be easily watched over that same link without even requiring storage on the receiving computer. That same 5 gigabyte DVD image when compressed using a high compression Codec such as DivX will have a size of approximately 1.2 gigabytes allowing it to be transferred on that same 100 Mbps link in under 2 minutes, or stored for posterity s sake on 2 CD-R discs which currently cost less than $1 each. I can't decide whether this argument is any good or not. He clearly has a compelling argument: small communities such as college campuses may have the common bandwidth to share movies locally. He seems to be implying, however, that 100Mbps is an easily-acquired level of _internet_ bandwidth, which would be an outright lie if he dared say so rather than just implying. As much as I hate to say it, I'll give him 10 points for effectiveness; his misdirection is going to be very convincing for non-technical folks. 9. A front page article of the New York Times was recently devoted to the emergence of a host of new "file-sharing" technologies, such as Gnutella, Imesh, FreeNet and others. No creativity here. In fact, I can't see any possible relevance, unless he's somehow hoping that Kaplan will be convinced that the internet is EVIL! EVIL! 0 points. 10. The value of DeCSS in this context has not gone unnoticed. A recent article in the Toronto Star explains precisely how a computer user can take advantage of the DivX compression technology described above, in combination with DeCSS to enable the decryption, copying and storage of DVD movies. See Exh. 3. See, also, "DVD 'Ripping ' Revisited, Toronto Star, May 4, 2000, Exh. 7 hereto (explaining how DivX compression technology can be used in conjunction with DeCSS to decrypt and compress DVD movies). I'm not clear what "this context" means, but this just _sounds_ bad. I think they're jumping really hard on one weakness in the defense arguments: we keep saying that DeCSS isn't useful in the real world, but if you want to infringe copyrights by transferring to some super-compressed format, step one is _decryption_. Do we have the guts to admit that this is true? We should concede that this is correct; and thank the MPAA for essentially admitting that perfect, bit-for-bit copying of DVD's isn't realistic. 10 points. 11. In effect, these file-sharing technologies enable users to highly compress and transmit unauthorized copies of movies over the Internet via broadband connections (any single transmission to a single student on a college campus will then suffice as a ready source for proliferation throughout that entire community). DeCSS, as a decryption device, enables the user to decrypt and copy the DVD film in digital form to accomplish this. This is an outright lie. He's implying that one college student with a 100Mbps ethernet jack in his dorm can somehow distribute massive files easily over the net. 0 points. 13. Defendants contend that the use of DeCSS in connection with such Internet piracy of movies is impractical, if not impossible. Thus, in paragraph 10 of Matt Pavlovich's Declaration, there is a statement to the effect that "[a]ny effort to simply play the unencrypted content stored on a harddisc or other large medium would be futile, due to the fact that there is no known player that can play from anything but a DVD disc." This is wrong. Using DeCSS I copied and decrypted all of the files from the movie "You've Got Mail" to the hard drive of a new Windows 98-based PC. After the copying was complete. I attempted to play back the decrypted movie from the files on the hard drive using a variety of commercial DVD software. All of the packages used allowed me to view the basic movie content [...] He wins big-time here. Assuming he's right, he just caught our side in a falsehood, and whether accidental or intentional, it's gonna hurt. 20 points. 15. Defendants also contend that one need not use DeCSS to achieve this result. Chris DiBona's Declaration, 16-21 suggests that even a CSS licensed DVD player enables copying of the file data into the hard drive. What Mr. DiBona does not make clear in his declaration, however, is that this data remains encrypted and thus, cannot be played from the hard drive, at least in a CSS licensed DVD player. Without going back and reading what Chris said, I think he's spinning his wheels. So copying encrypted files is OK? And descrambing files for display is OK? But copying _and_ descrambling is not? I have trouble following his argument here. 0 points. 16. Although defendants justify the indiscriminate proliferation of DeCSS as part of a legitimate reverse engineering effort to develop an unlicensed Linux-based DVD player, the fact remains that unrestricted distribution of this utility does little to serve such a reverse engineering process, for a number of reasons. If he's really going to argue that this is a stupid way to do reverse-engineering I think that our argument is causing some fear on the other side. If Kaplan is a really nice guy he'll swallow this argument but I think it's clearly just this guy going on the defensive without any ammunition. 0 points. 17. This becomes even more apparent when one considers the proliferation of DeCSS in object code form. As Mr. Wagner acknowledges, there is little to be discerned from object code iterations of DeCSS [...] Very good. I think he's absolutely correct. How can we counter this? 10 points, though I doubt the judge will see the cleverness here. 19. I am troubled by the notion that academic, scientific or other interests would enable persons to furnish a decryption program (in source or object code) with impunity, particularly where its publication is a subterfuge for providing the utility. Well, now, this is just whining. 0 points. 20. As I explained in my recent deposition, CSS is certainly not a weak encryption program; it was not "cracked" until some three years after it was embodied in authorized DVD players and discs and then, as stated above, only after the algorithm was disclosed. See Exh. 14. 21. The suggestion that CSS was a weak system because it was cracked is a meaningless test of its "effectiveness." As declarant Wagner acknowledges, the whole purpose of cryptography and security testing is to defeat security systems. According to Wagner, it is "fundamentally impossible" to secure any such system against the efforts of dedicated individuals. I think he's absolutely right here and I think it was probably a mistake to argue "since we were able to crack it it must be weak and protecting weak crypto with law is wrong" at the same time as we argue "secure client designs are fundamentally flawed and we're always going to be able to crack them, especially if they're in software". The fact remains that the stupid, illogical "secure-client" design might be protected by 17 USC 1201. This lawsuit is the wrong place to argue this point. Even though Frank's comments were 100% true, I can't help but think that that argument can only hurt here. 20 points. 22. Defendants also suggest that DeCSS is not unique and that there are other readily available utilities which perform essentially the same function. Again, I think he's absolutely correct and this argument is a loser. Just because MPAA has chosen to go after DeCSS and not the others does not in any way mean that DeCSS is OK. 20 points. 23. As I also stated in my recent deposition, CSS and the decryption of it via DeCSS has nothing to do with protecting so-called regional coding or any mechanism which prevents consumers from fast-forwarding through the initial audiovisual information contained on a DVD disc (which includes copyright infringement warnings. and the like). Ooh, he's really asking for it here. The logic of our argument seems pretty bulletproof to me; I don't understand why he's even trying. He doesn't even offer any evidence here, just "is not! is too!". If anyone replies to this they should jump on this. If licensing CSS requires region coding and fast-forward-through-ads prevention, it's easy to see how a reverse-engineered player has concrete commercial value. 0 points. 24. Finally, defendants suggest that browser programs of users automatically convert plaintext references to hyperlinks without any action on the part of the person who posted the plaintext reference, e.g., on a web page. We better tread lightly here. Did somebody suggest that _browsers_ actually do this, or just email clients? We better not stretch this so far that we get caught in a lie. 5 points. (note: while writing this I realized that using the lynx browser in a "gnome-terminal" [gnome xterm clone] the terminal is highlighting text URLs and changing the pointer, implying that they're clickable. On a Redhat machine they don't do anything when clicked, but clearly the functionality we're looking for is there...) Your score is 105, out of a possible 350, in 24 moves. This score gives you the rank of Novice Adventurer. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 23:36:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA17199 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:36:15 -0400 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 XAA17196 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:36:14 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max02-18.suba.com [206.69.121.82]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA01056 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:37:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:37:14 -0500 Message-ID: <000701bfd031$ac181ea0$527945ce@bugbug> 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: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C11@mail2.onetouch.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 Richard wrote: > > This is a useful analogy. Can we maintain it? I'm kind of with Seth (Seths?) here, in that I don't think it really helps us to get into a metaphor war. We should skewer their metaphors and then stick to facts as much as we are able. As Seth pointed out, a metaphor relating copyright to any sort of property ownership is only going to be so useful. sparky > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Schulien [mailto:jms@uic.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 2:30 PM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 > > > > > > > The MPAA knows that copyright is not like owning a house. > > The public, > > > > > perhaps, doesn't. The MPAA hopes that the public will be > > sympathetic > > > to the idea that various things that might hurt the MPAA's interests > > > are like breaking into a house. > > > > A better analogy is that you purchase a automobile from a manufacturer > > that > > has entered into an exclusive contract with a chain of > > service stations > > to > > maintain and service the cars that they manufacture. The hood of the > > car > > contains a lock. Keys are only issued to the licensed > > service stations. > > > > You, the owner of the car, "break into" the hood in order to > > save money > > by changing the fluids and filters yourself, instead of paying a > > licensed > > service station to do it for you. > > > > The automobile manufacturer complains that you are "hurting their > > interests." > > > > This analogy might better explain to the public the > > "interests" that the > > MPAA > > claim are being injured. > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 23:43:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA17285 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:43:03 -0400 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 XAA17282 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:43:02 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA22065 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:44:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:44:36 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000606224436.A22004@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net>; from eds@reric.net on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:31:28PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:31:28PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: (quoting the new MPAA declaration) > 10. The value of DeCSS in this context has not gone unnoticed. A > recent article in the Toronto Star explains precisely how a computer > user can take advantage of the DivX compression technology described > above, in combination with DeCSS to enable the decryption, copying and > storage of DVD movies. See Exh. 3. See, also, "DVD 'Ripping ' > Revisited, Toronto Star, May 4, 2000, Exh. 7 hereto (explaining how > DivX compression technology can be used in conjunction with DeCSS to > decrypt and compress DVD movies). Is anyone able to find this article? Though the Toronto Star seems to have searchable archives at www.thestar.com , I can't find any trace of this story. It'd be nice to see what they really said. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 6 23:43:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA17362 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:43:40 -0400 Received: from dial203.roadrunner.com (sf-du203.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.203]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA17346 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:43:37 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial203.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA03506 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:45:53 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:45:52 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Schumann n.17 Message-ID: <20000606214551.A3250@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It's a blatant nonsequitur: 17. This becomes even more apparent when one considers the proliferation of DeCSS in object code form. As Mr. Wagner acknowledges, there is little to be discerned from object code ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ iterations of DeCSS: "[H]igh-level source code is much easier for humans to understand than the low-level computer instructions found in DVD players". See Wagner, ¶ 16. Arguments concerning the need to proliferate DeCSS as part of a reverse engineering effort thus fall short of justifying widespread dissemination of the object code utility. Neither writing style nor the difficulty one might have understanding a text correlate with information content or the subtlety of the ideas contained in a text. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 00:00:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA17471 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:00:51 -0400 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 AAA17468 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:00:50 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max02-18.suba.com [206.69.121.82]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA01899 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:02:18 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:01:44 -0500 Message-ID: <000801bfd035$1809c200$527945ce@bugbug> 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: <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.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 Eric wrote: > > > 13. Defendants contend that the use of DeCSS in connection with such > Internet piracy of movies is impractical, if not impossible. Thus, in > paragraph 10 of Matt Pavlovich's Declaration, there is a statement to > the effect that "[a]ny effort to simply play the unencrypted content > stored on a harddisc or other large medium would be futile, due to the > fact that there is no known player that can play from anything but a > DVD disc." This is wrong. Using DeCSS I copied and decrypted all of > the files from the movie "You've Got Mail" to the hard drive of a new > Windows 98-based PC. After the copying was complete. I attempted to > play back the decrypted movie from the files on the hard drive using a > variety of commercial DVD software. All of the packages used allowed > me to view the basic movie content [...] > > He wins big-time here. Assuming he's right, he just caught our side in a > falsehood, and whether accidental or intentional, it's gonna hurt. 20 > points. oh, watch me stumble over myself in my haste to disagree (with complete respect of course Eric). When I get around to writing a little response to No 13 (tomorrow maybe) - and I will be looking over your points here more closely for ones to include - my response to RS is: Dear Mr RS, where is the piracy here which makes it SO obvious how related DeCSS is to it? In fact your little experiment does nothing more than show that indeed you CAN exercise fair use rights with your little DeCSS utility: RS did what's called "media-shifting" (correct me if I got that term wrong). Again (and again and *again*) this point is only about "piracy" if we agree that *any* copying, and any viewing of a DVD movie through a non-licensed player, is piracy - which it is NOT. (ergo - testing this hypothesis out here - the "falsehood" is not so damaging as it is just embarrassing) SCORE: ZERO sparky comin to get choo, man > > Your score is 105, out of a possible 350, in 24 moves. > This score gives you the rank of Novice Adventurer. > > Eric > Step back, soldier, that should be 85 points. Well, maybe 90. Does this mean we get to steal his magic stuff? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 00:10:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA17686 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:10:52 -0400 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 AAA17683 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:10:51 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zXAh-0006Pv-00 for ; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:10:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:10:27 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 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 > I think that the transition from the previous para to the next (Paul's to > mine) will need some ironing. Tim, why don't you put it in as Paul has > penned it, and we'll work on it from there. Ok. > > > Interestingly, by the standard of the MPAA's "tool that breaks the lock on > > > your house" metaphor, not only is a use of DeCSS not an act of theft, it can > > > only be a completely legal act; that is because DeCSS is useable only on > > > DVDs which you have purchased and which you therefore own - in other words, > > > it is like a tool that you use to break the lock on the house you purchased > > > from the MPAA when you are locked out and the MPAA won't tell you where they > > > > ... when the MPAA have locked you out ... > > Like! Let's shove that stupid metaphor back down their gullets.. How about: Interestingly, by the standard of the MPAA's "tool that breaks the lock on your house" metaphor, not only is a use of DeCSS not an act of theft, it can only be a completely legal act; that is because DeCSS is useable only on DVDs which you have purchased and which you therefore own - in other words, it is like a tool that you use to break the lock on the house you have purchased from the MPAA when they have locked out of your home and refuse to give you the key. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Shows direct action by the MPAA). Could still be simplified a bit... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:14:46 -0400 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 VAA09090 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (smb23@localhost) by lennon.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA16924 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:16:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve M Bibayoff To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] RIAA vs Wherehouse Records? 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 Don't know if this is relevant or not, about 10 years ago, RIAA(I think) sued Wherehouse Records for selling used CD's. I can't find the actual case to see if they defined fairuse or liscense or any of the other issues we are facing today in regard to who owns a DVD. Wherehouse Records did win, I just don't know how or why. Steve _______________________________________________________ If Microsoft doesn't trust Windows(TM), why should you? http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 00:21:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA17967 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:21:00 -0400 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 AAA17964 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:20:59 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA22199 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:22:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:22:33 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000606232233.A22111@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net> <000801bfd035$1809c200$527945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <000801bfd035$1809c200$527945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:01:44PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:01:44PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > Eric wrote: > > > > > > 13. Defendants contend that the use of DeCSS in connection with such > > Internet piracy of movies is impractical, if not impossible. Thus, in > > paragraph 10 of Matt Pavlovich's Declaration, there is a statement to > > the effect that "[a]ny effort to simply play the unencrypted content > > stored on a harddisc or other large medium would be futile, due to the > > fact that there is no known player that can play from anything but a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > DVD disc." This is wrong. Using DeCSS I copied and decrypted all of ^^^^^^^^ > > the files from the movie "You've Got Mail" to the hard drive of a new > > Windows 98-based PC. After the copying was complete. I attempted to > > play back the decrypted movie from the files on the hard drive using a > > variety of commercial DVD software. All of the packages used allowed > > me to view the basic movie content [...] > > > > He wins big-time here. Assuming he's right, he just caught our side in a > > falsehood, and whether accidental or intentional, it's gonna hurt. 20 > > points. > > oh, watch me stumble over myself in my haste to disagree (with complete > respect of course Eric). When I get around to writing a little response to > No 13 (tomorrow maybe) - and I will be looking over your points here more > closely for ones to include - my response to RS is: Dear Mr RS, where is the > piracy here which makes it SO obvious how related DeCSS is to it? In fact > your little experiment does nothing more than show that indeed you CAN > exercise fair use rights with your little DeCSS utility: RS did what's > called "media-shifting" (correct me if I got that term wrong). Again (and > again and *again*) this point is only about "piracy" if we agree that *any* > copying, and any viewing of a DVD movie through a non-licensed player, is > piracy - which it is NOT. (ergo - testing this hypothesis out here - the > "falsehood" is not so damaging as it is just embarrassing) OK, here's how I read it: Matt Pavlovitch says "there is no known player that can play from anything but a DVD disc." This would imply, if true, that DeCSS cannot generate a playable hard-drive copy of a movie. If that's really not true, they've caught us saying something that's not true that would have helped our case. The assumption being, of course, how many other assertions have we made that aren't true? I still think it hurts. It's not that there's piracy demonstrated there; it's that we got caught saying something that's not true, and they can prove it. Credibility. It looks bad, and if any other arguments were depending on the idea that licensed players won't play unencrypted files from arbitrary media, those arguments are going to crumble as well. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 00:30:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA18217 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:30:30 -0400 Received: from dial218.roadrunner.com (dial218.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.218] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA18214 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:30:27 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial218.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04204 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:32:48 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:32:46 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Message-ID: <20000606223246.A4075@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:10:27PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:10:27PM -0500, Tim Neu wrote: [ ... ] > > > ... when the MPAA have locked you out ... > > > > Like! Let's shove that stupid metaphor back down their gullets.. > > How about: > > > Interestingly, by the standard of the MPAA's "tool that breaks the lock on > your house" metaphor, not only is a use of DeCSS not an act of theft, it > can only be a completely legal act; that is because DeCSS is useable only > on DVDs which you have purchased and which you therefore own - in other > words, it is like a tool that you use to break the lock on the house you > have purchased from the MPAA when they have locked out of your home and > refuse to give you the key. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > (Shows direct action by the MPAA). Could still be simplified a bit... I'm with Seth and Seth on this one. I think we should simply point out that the issue is not theft --- after all the plaintiffs did not file an infringement suit --- but about access to speech. Access controls have serious First Amendment problems if applied incorrectly or out of place. The property analogy is troublesome because it lends itself so easily to discussions of theft, yet this case is not about theft of any kind. The complaint is about 1201(a)(2), which is not about theft. It _is_ about access, in part the ability to play the movie you bought. That's a First Amendment issue, not a property issue. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 00:50:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA18321 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:50:03 -0400 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 AAA18318 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:49:59 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zXmQ-0007HH-00 for ; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:49:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:49:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q6 In-Reply-To: <393D6524.CCBF720A@uic.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 Tue, 6 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: > I'd like to address question six. > > The MPAA says: > > A: The motion picture studios' position on copyright protection is not a > new one. Copyright protection is a principle established in the United > States Constitution ... > > This should not go unrebutted. The Constitution provides for copyright, > not "copyright protection." The > phrase "copyright protection" is an industry-created phrase designed to > blur the lines between the > concepts of copyright and copy protection, and I would argue that the > DMCA is a law designed to > blur the same lines. > > Copyright requires fair use in order to be constitutional. Copy > protection is a technical means of > preventing, among other things, fair use. Thus a legal > blanket-prohibition on circumvention of > copy protection is not supported by the spirit or letter of the > copyright clause. > > Copyright and copy protection are two different concepts, with different > purposes. Copyright is > intended to facilitate public access to works, while copy protection is > intended to restrict public > access to works. Much as the MPAA would like to combine the two into a > new concept of > "copyright protection", combining the legal coercion of copyright with > the technical coercion of > copy protection, they should not be allowed to argue, unchallenged, that > this concept is > supported by the Constitution. How do we integrate this with the existing answer? It seems to me that we need a little bit from both responses... Do you want to propose a new answer (in its entirity) ? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:01:07 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zXxH-0007du-00 for ; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:00:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:00:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Analogies In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C11@mail2.onetouch.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 IMHO, the last thing we need is to use another confusing analogy... The reader will probably already be a bit ticked that the MPAA analogies were so deceiving - that might cast a doubt on our analogies. I think we just need to make the MPAA analogies look bad (that's not hard), explain why they are inaccurate, and move on. If we do use other analogies to make our point (like this one)- then I think we should try to simplify them as much as possible so there is no room for confusion. I guess my primary concern is that we would write an excellent analogy, but no one will have the patience to read all the way through it. Just my .02$ On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: > This is a useful analogy. Can we maintain it? > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Schulien [mailto:jms@uic.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 2:30 PM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 > > > > > > > The MPAA knows that copyright is not like owning a house. > > The public, > > > > > perhaps, doesn't. The MPAA hopes that the public will be > > sympathetic > > > to the idea that various things that might hurt the MPAA's interests > > > are like breaking into a house. > > > > A better analogy is that you purchase a automobile from a manufacturer > > that > > has entered into an exclusive contract with a chain of > > service stations > > to > > maintain and service the cars that they manufacture. The hood of the > > car > > contains a lock. Keys are only issued to the licensed > > service stations. > > > > You, the owner of the car, "break into" the hood in order to > > save money > > by changing the fluids and filters yourself, instead of paying a > > licensed > > service station to do it for you. > > > > The automobile manufacturer complains that you are "hurting their > > interests." > > > > This analogy might better explain to the public the > > "interests" that the > > MPAA > > claim are being injured. > > > > > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:38:08 -0400 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 WAA27473; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:37:27 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA00664; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:36:46 -0700 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] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: 6 Jun 2000 22:35:42 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 64 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8hkmve$kn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net>, Eric Seppanen wrote: > 20. As I explained in my recent deposition, CSS is certainly not a > weak encryption program; it was not "cracked" until some three years > after it was embodied in authorized DVD players and discs and then, as > stated above, only after the algorithm was disclosed. See Exh. 14. > > 21. The suggestion that CSS was a weak system because it was cracked > is a meaningless test of its "effectiveness." As declarant Wagner > acknowledges, the whole purpose of cryptography and security testing > is to defeat security systems. According to Wagner, it is > "fundamentally impossible" to secure any such system against the > efforts of dedicated individuals. > > I think he's absolutely right here I disagree. The above takes quotes out of context and pieces them together in a misleading manner. I say, 0 points. The fact is, the three year delay referred to above consisted of waiting three years for the algorithm to be disclosed, then waiting a few weeks for it to be broken. (Before it was disclosed, noone with any experience in the field was likely to spend any of their valuable time on it.) This is a reflection on how long it took before someone got interested enough in the DVD system to reverse-engineer it, not a proof of the strength of the system. Actually, I am not suggesting that the CSS stream cipher is weak merely because it has been cracked. I am suggesting that it is weak because my examination of the algorithm shows that it is susceptible to standard, well-known, trivial attacks. I claim that if you have experience in cryptanalysis of stream ciphers, you should recognize CSS immediately as a probably-weak cipher; and if you spend a little bit of time thinking on it (say, a day), you should be able to discover some of the known attacks. The fact that it has been cracked is further evidence of this claim, but is not the only evidence. When I finally looked at it at the algorithm (after Frank Stephenson had posted a succinct description of it, in the introduction to his analysis), I noticed one of CSS's fundamental weaknesses immediately (i.e., before I could even get to the part where Frank Stephenson wrote about his attack). The CSS stream cipher is an algorithm that I would expect can be broken as a homework exercise by graduate students. The quote that it is "fundamentally impossible" to prevent copying has nothing to do with the cryptographic strength of the CSS stream cipher, and everything to do with the possibility of reverse-engineering and the existence of software players. It is comparably straightforward to build a stream cipher that will be secure in practice. The DVD industry failed to do so. In comparison, it is fundamentally impossible to build a secure copy protection system that will resist dedicated attack when you deploy software players. There is no contradiction in these two statements. The purpose of security testing is to analyze the security of systems. If you defeat the security system, you know an upper bound on its strength. But defeating the system is not the purpose of testing -- succeeding in breaking the system is usually bad news for the system, so ideally you'd like to *fail* to break the system. :-) I don't claim to understand how these technical facts might affect the legal case. But, this is my understanding of the facts. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 01:44:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA18973 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:44:13 -0400 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 BAA18970 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:44:12 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zYd5-0000BK-00 for ; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:43:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:43:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ - Nightly Updates In-Reply-To: <000701bfd031$ac181ea0$527945ce@bugbug> 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 reduce the static, I will stop sending notices to the group every time I repost the page. I will instead let you know any days which I am unable to update the FAQ. Unless you hear from me, there will be an update each night. (the date of the last update will be obvious, since the date will be updated in the page) (tonight's version has a little bit of HTML cleanup, along with today's updates - still more is needed, but I'll work on it as I merge things). Lots of takers on questions 4, 6, and 7. Do we want to polish these off first before moving on, or should we try to get the entire framework built and polish it all later? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:48:46 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zYhY-0000JG-00 for ; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:48:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:48:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C09@mail2.onetouch.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, 6 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: > Should the second section be more accurately titled "OpenLaw's rebuttal to > the MPAA answer"? Yeah.... It should... :-) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:57:25 -0400 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 WAA27538 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:56:44 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA00701; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:56:03 -0700 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] Schumann n.17 Date: 6 Jun 2000 22:55:54 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 44 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8hko5a$ls$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000606214551.A3250@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000606214551.A3250@localhost>, Paul Fenimore wrote: > It's a blatant nonsequitur: Here's another one I have trouble following, in a similar vein: 16. [...] To the extent that the study of CSS itself is relevant, defendants declarant, Wagner, acknowledges that there is little need to do so because DeCSS "effectively . . substituted for or constituted that part of the entire job of reverse engineering a DVD player." Wagner Decl., ¶ 16. That is, DeCSS is not being used for study, but rather for its decryption/copy function. Moreover, as another of defendants' declarants acknowledged in a comment he made on the Internet about the value of reverse engineering in this context: [since] most cryptanalysts don't have the skills for reverse-engineering (I find it tedious and boring), they never bother analyzing the systems. This is why COMP128, CMEA, ORYX, the Firewire cipher, the DVD cipher, and the Netscape PRNG were all broken within months of their disclosure (despite the fact that some of them have been widely deployed for many years); once the algorithm is revealed, it's easy to see the flaw, but it might take years before someone bothers to reverse-engineer the algorithm and publish it. Contests don't help. Statement of Bruce Schneier, August 26, 1999, Exh. 13. I am trying to understand his argument, but without much success. Reverse engineering is not a "decryption/copy function", I think. It is, however, a common prerequisite to "study" or other analysis. I'm also at a loss to understand how Schneier's statement is claimed to support the statement that "DeCSS is not being used for study". Can anyone help me understand the logic here? Perhaps the misunderstanding here is that Schumann is thinking the disclosure that an algorithm is weak is a bad thing? Suppose the DVD protection system is weak. Suppose further that you believe that disclosing this fact would be undesirable. Then you might conclude that distributing DeCSS is undesirable, especially if this distribution enabled others to discover that there are flaws in the security system. Could this be what Schumann was trying to argue? How should we read his declaration? Did this make sense to anyone else? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 04:07:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA19832 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 04:07:46 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA19829 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 04:07:43 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zatq-0004BM-00; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 01:09:18 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:09:18 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607010918.H2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net> <8hkmve$kn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <8hkmve$kn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from daw@cs.berkeley.edu on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:35:42PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu David A. Wagner writes: > In article <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net>, > Eric Seppanen wrote: > > 20. As I explained in my recent deposition, CSS is certainly not a > > weak encryption program; it was not "cracked" until some three years > > after it was embodied in authorized DVD players and discs and then, as > > stated above, only after the algorithm was disclosed. See Exh. 14. [David Wagner disputes Schumann's interpretation and assumptions] Hey, Mr. Schumann: I've got a really secure cryptosystem right here on this piece of paper. It is a nifty little stream cipher that I just invented. OK, yeah, I don't know anything about making up stream ciphers, but I do know what one is, so I can make one up just as well as the next guy. So, why is my cryptosystem so secure? Well, you see, I haven't told anyone about it. It seems that nobody will be able to break my cipher, not even the expert cryptographers of the motion picture industry*! How can I be so sure of this? Because I have just burned the only existing description of my stream cipher in a fire. Oops. Oh well, that means that even a non-expert like myself can make a security system better than CSS, since it will (unlike CSS) never be disclosed -- and thus never broken. * OK, that's not fair: Matsushita invented CSS, and they _do_ know how to do a reasonable security system. Of course, CSS is not a reasonable security system, and was never meant to be one -- it was a short-term deterrent to casual home piracy of late-window content, and a bit of a carrot to get hardware vendors under a licensing regime without any big legal hassles. Right? And it did both of those things very well, so I'm afraid it's at the end of its life cycle now. The technical inadequacies of CSS don't reflect a lack of ability on the part of Matsushita or other firms involved in the process. They reflect a conflict between the copyright industries and the consumer electronics industries about what capabilities in a content encryption system are appropriate at a particular point. ROT13 was an appropriate encryption mechanism for the purposes it was set to on Usenet, once upon a time. CSS was perhaps similarly appropriate for the purposes it was set to on DVDs, once upon a time. Unfortunately, now we have to deal with 1201, which grants special privilege to CSS not enjoyed by other comparable systems. Znlor crbcyr jub hfr EBG13 ba gurve wbxrf cbfgrq gb erp.uhzbe.shaal pna hfr 1201 gb fhr gur TAH cebwrpg sbe qvfgevohgvat TAH ge. -- 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 Jun 7 04:34:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA20060 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 04:34:09 -0400 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 EAA20055 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 04:34:06 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12zbJL-0007kg-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:35:39 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:35:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000606223128.A21845@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 The RedHat / Gnome URLs are right mouse button clickable. A meny will then pop up, where "Open in browser" is an option. However, when this option is selected, the browser fails to appear on my particular setup. Does anyone have this feature working ? On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > 24. Finally, defendants suggest that browser programs of users > automatically convert plaintext references to hyperlinks without any > action on the part of the person who posted the plaintext reference, > e.g., on a web page. > > We better tread lightly here. Did somebody suggest that _browsers_ > actually do this, or just email clients? We better not stretch this so > far that we get caught in a lie. 5 points. (note: while writing this I > realized that using the lynx browser in a "gnome-terminal" [gnome xterm > clone] the terminal is highlighting text URLs and changing the pointer, > implying that they're clickable. On a Redhat machine they don't do > anything when clicked, but clearly the functionality we're looking for is > there...) 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 Jun 7 04:50:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA20730 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 04:50:42 -0400 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 EAA20727 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 04:50:40 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12zbZP-0000Af-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:52:15 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:52:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000606223128.A21845@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 PowerRipper in Schumann 22: I think the way he dismisses PowerRipper as a DeCSS equivalent is incosistent with the way he depicts the downfall of the movie industry through DivX. A DivX compressor coupled with PowerRipper would solve many of the problems asociated with DeCSS, especially navigation. DeCSS does not try to correctly navigate the movie, but rather makes a raw dump. PowerRipper on the other hand will let the underlying player do the navigation, and can skip commercials etc. As DivX does not support the navigational features of DVD video, they are not needed. Would a DivX compressor coupled with power ripper be sanctionable under 1201? Schumann points out that PowerRipper doesn't actually decrypt the content. So what exactly would such a combination of tools be circumventing ? frank Schumann 22: ... "PowerRipper" discussed in 18 of Mr. Stevenson's declaration do not perform the same function as DeCSS, for the following reasons: PowerRipper is fundamentally different in that it does not even perform the actual decryption. PowerRipper requires the use of separate DVD playback software to actually read and decrypt the content. PowerRipper then parasitically attaches itself to the legitimate player and takes the decrypted content from the computer's RAM and send it to the hard-drive for storage. PowerRipper is significantly less functional than DeCSS in several respects, including a very cumbersome and difficult to use environment due to the multitude of programs required. More importantly, PowerRipper is only able to extract the content actually "viewed" through the normal player, thus many additional features, additional soundtracks, etc. are not available... On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > 22. Defendants also suggest that DeCSS is not unique and that there > are other readily available utilities which perform essentially the > same function. > > Again, I think he's absolutely correct and this argument is a loser. Just > because MPAA has chosen to go after DeCSS and not the others does not in > any way mean that DeCSS is OK. 20 points. 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 Jun 7 05:10:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA20978 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 05:10:33 -0400 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 FAA20975 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 05:10:31 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12zbsd-0001XN-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:12:07 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:12:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Schumann n.17 In-Reply-To: <8hko5a$ls$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: 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 FAA20976 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 6 Jun 2000, David A. Wagner wrote: > In article <20000606214551.A3250@localhost>, > 16. [...] To the extent that the study of CSS itself is relevant, > defendants declarant, Wagner, acknowledges that there is little need > to do so because DeCSS "effectively . . substituted for or constituted > that part of the entire job of reverse engineering a DVD player." Wagner > Decl., ¶ 16. That is, DeCSS is not being used for study, but rather > for its decryption/copy function. Moreover, as another of defendants' > declarants acknowledged in a comment he made on the Internet about the > value of reverse engineering in this context: > [since] most cryptanalysts don't have the skills for > reverse-engineering (I find it tedious and boring), they never > bother analyzing the systems. This is why COMP128, CMEA, ORYX, > the Firewire cipher, the DVD cipher, and the Netscape PRNG were > all broken within months of their disclosure (despite the fact > that some of them have been widely deployed for many years); once > the algorithm is revealed, it's easy to see the flaw, but it might > take years before someone bothers to reverse-engineer the algorithm > and publish it. Contests don't help. > Statement of Bruce Schneier, August 26, 1999, Exh. 13. > > I am trying to understand his argument, but without much success. > Can anyone help me understand the logic here? I think a major problem with RS declaration is that he freely interchanges RE in the cryptography sense of the word, and RE as an effort to produce a Linux player. Not distinguishing between these two froms of reverse engeneering gives hem consideral leeway in attacking our position. Conversly it makes his arguments hard to follow for readers who do distinguish between the two forms of RE. 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 Jun 7 06:15:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA21559 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 06:15:21 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA21556 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 06:15:19 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 12zctK-00056n-00; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:16:54 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 12zctL-0007ff-00; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:16:55 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:16:55 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q6 Message-ID: <20000607121655.A29418@inka.de> References: <200006070000.UAA26675@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from cpt@gryphon.auspice.net on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 08:28:53PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 08:28:53PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > What John is saying (I think) is that while there are copyrights, the > Constitution says nothing about how draconian the protection of copyright > may be, I would disagree. The Constitution allows for copyrights to "promote ... the useful arts". IMO that means that if and when the copyright system no longer serves that purpose or even becomes detrimental to it, it becomes unconstitutional. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 06:21:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA21679 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 06:21:27 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA21676 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 06:21:26 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 12zczG-0005Ik-00; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:23:02 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 12zczH-0007i3-00; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:23:03 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:23:03 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607122303.B29418@inka.de> References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov>; from richard.hecker@dfrc.nasa.gov on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 05:53:47PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 05:53:47PM -0700, Richard A. Hecker wrote: > >Already working on a reply, which I gladly submit to Openlaw Rewrite Press. :) > > >http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm, if anyone > >feels like joining in. > > Good start. In item 7 his claim, "A 5 gigabyte DVD disc image can be > transferred over a 100 Mbps ethernet link in under 7 minutes", is > ludicrous. He > assumes a pathological case that does not exist. He ignores overhead, > network contention, etc... > > To refute this claim I would pick a 5 mile stretch of NY Street as an > example (the > more renowned the better ;-). I would compare his 7 minutes with the 10 > minutes > the judge would need to drive this 26400 feet at 30 mph. The 7 minute claim is even more ludicrous than that. I've had 2 machines directly linked and have barely approached a third of that speed with real data. Even when the network is otherwise unloaded, there are protocol overheads he conveniently ignores. A better analogy would be tearing though the streets at 100mph. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 07:00:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA21893 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:00:34 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA21890 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:00:31 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e57B25D06171 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:02:06 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:02:03 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 In-Reply-To: <20000606121853.Y2589@zork.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 Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: >It seems better to argue that the analogy is absurd (and focus on >what the law is and what the law ought to be) than to admit that >the analogy is worthwhile and try to argue that the MPAA's >misinterpreted it. Indeed. People have a lot of misconceptions about IP nowadays so combating needless, sentimental hyperbole is always a good idea. >The MPAA knows that copyright is not like owning a house. The public, >perhaps, doesn't. The MPAA hopes that the public will be sympathetic >to the idea that various things that might hurt the MPAA's interests >are like breaking into a house. This is also part of the greater scheme of things in that, as the congressional record for Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act shows, there is growing sympathy towards seeing IP as comparable to real property. This is a view of information as houses which can be completely owned and monopolized, and also a drastic departure from what most reasonably astute people consider the proper nature of IP (To Promote...). The MPAA and RIAA certainly would like to stretch the public's view this way, as MPAA/RIAA affiliates' comments on things like just-say-no-to-piracy compaigns in elementary schools show. >So people here hope that the public will be _more_ sympathetic to the idea >that the DMCA is like locking people out of their own homes? We, like the >MPAA, know that copyright isn't like owning a house. So why argue on the >MPAA's terms? I think the proper strategy is to stretch the analogy to show its futility and the grave difference between IP and real property. Then use that to bootstrap an introduction into a more fair headed representation, with some Orwellianism added for flavor. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 07:16:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA22070 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:16:28 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA22067 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:16:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e57BI2909686 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:18:02 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:18:01 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q6 In-Reply-To: <393D6524.CCBF720A@uic.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 Tue, 6 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: >A: The motion picture studios' position on copyright protection is not a >new one. Copyright protection is a principle established in the United >States Constitution ... > >This should not go unrebutted. The Constitution provides for copyright, >not "copyright protection." The phrase "copyright protection" is an >industry-created phrase designed to blur the lines between the concepts of >copyright and copy protection, and I would argue that the DMCA is a law >designed to blur the same lines. It should also be noted that even if the Constitution actually confers to the Congress the power to pass copyright/IP law, the Constitution certainly does not mandate it or even offer any suggestion what form/duration the protection should take. Given the history of IP, the Framers probably had something in their mind which doesn't bear much resemblance to today's rather oppressive concept of IP. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 08:19:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA22363 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:19:58 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA22360 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:19:57 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e57CLWA21748 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:21:32 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:21:31 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <8hkmve$kn$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 6 Jun 2000, David A. Wagner wrote: >The fact is, the three year delay referred to above consisted of waiting >three years for the algorithm to be disclosed, then waiting a few weeks >for it to be broken. (Before it was disclosed, noone with any experience >in the field was likely to spend any of their valuable time on it.) Precisely. The problem is, RS confuses the security of a complete, cryptography reliant system with the strength of a cipher. It's easy to see that it is difficult to arrive at a secure system without a trusted code base. This, in software products, is all but impossible. But... The fact is that this has nothing at all to do with the strength (meaning lack thereof) of the CSS cipher. CSS was badly constructed, even according to some pretty elementary principles in cryptanalysis. Given something like DES, or better yet RC5 or 6 since they're stream ciphers as well, the system would not have fallen to pieces when the Xing key was recovered. They could have done what the system apparently was meant to do: revoke the compromised key and go on with business. But instead the weakness of CSS compromised all the keys. The DMCA proponents do not seem to be able to see the inherent fun in picking on technology to see what it's eaten - someone will always do just that and a properly designed cipher would have withstood that without difficulty. Now it didn't. That's bad design, carelessness and something the law *certainly should not protect*. We shouldn't be barred from studying stuff and sharing the findings just because some idiot didn't design the stuff properly. >The CSS stream cipher is an algorithm that I would expect can be broken >as a homework exercise by graduate students. Precisely. Relying on something like that with a carefully crafted key revokation scheme is utter stupidity. >It is comparably straightforward to build a stream cipher that will be >secure in practice. The DVD industry failed to do so. In comparison, >it is fundamentally impossible to build a secure copy protection system >that will resist dedicated attack when you deploy software players. >There is no contradiction in these two statements. My point exactly. Without a trusted codebase you will always leave your keys exposed at one stage or another. (Though I do not think this can be quite /proven/?) >I don't claim to understand how these technical facts might affect the >legal case. But, this is my understanding of the facts. And an informed one. I think the main weight of facts of this kind lay in their publicity/propaganda value. To tech people, this is a frightening example of law sanctioned, bad engineering. To the public, a warning of how trivial little technologies augmented with DMCA protection will cause walls to fall on them. Put out correctly, good stuff... Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 08:26:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA22503 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:26:35 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA22500 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:26:33 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e57CS8v22797 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:28:09 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:28:08 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Schumann n.17 In-Reply-To: <8hko5a$ls$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 6 Jun 2000, David A. Wagner wrote: >Reverse engineering is not a "decryption/copy function", I think. >It is, however, a common prerequisite to "study" or other analysis. >I'm also at a loss to understand how Schneier's statement is claimed >to support the statement that "DeCSS is not being used for study". > >Can anyone help me understand the logic here? I think the logic goes something like this: RE is difficult, building cracking tools *after* a system has been REd is trivial. So, as soon as the reverse engineering bit is done, the tools (DeCSS) built on that effort are not of interest: CSS and hence DeCSS itself are not interesting from the point of view of cryptography because they are so trivial, so study of cryptography/security/whatever cannot be a valid reason to distribute the tool (DeCSS). Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 09:13:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA22921 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:13:32 -0400 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 JAA22918 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:13:30 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12zffm-0001aM-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:15:06 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:15:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Schumann n.17 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 This illustrates how he confuses the two forms of RE. For analyzing CSS the anonymous source as almost all that is needed, plus a little explanation on how the keys are derived. This is the then the RE product that cryptographers need. ( type 1 ) RS by faulty reasoning equates this with DeCSS.exe. Once they player keys are figured out and written into css_auth, and css_cat, a second RE effort is helped, namely writing a Linux player. css_cat / css_auth ( readdvd ) are the work products of RE type 2. But RS conveniently dismisses these in #22 claiming that because they lack a GUI, they are uninteresting. RS effectively distorts RE type 1 and 2 and confuse them with DeCSS.exe, the fair use tool, and progresses with waving it around like a red cloth, trying to provoke the court into striking down RE 1,2 and fair use in a single swoop. frank On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > RE is difficult, building cracking tools *after* a system has been REd > is trivial. So, as soon as the reverse engineering bit is done, the > tools (DeCSS) built on that effort are not of interest: CSS and hence > DeCSS itself are not interesting from the point of view of cryptography > because they are so trivial, so study of cryptography/security/whatever > cannot be a valid reason to distribute the tool (DeCSS). 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 Jun 7 09:48:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA23157 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:48:53 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA23154 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:48:52 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07389 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:50:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA24660 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:50:28 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:50:27 -0500 (CDT) From: sam tobin-hochstadt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.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, 6 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > There is a new declaration of Robert Schumann. It covers the > practicalities of usage of DeCSS, among other things. Evidently, > college students can download DVD movies in under 7 minutes. > As a college student with (no longer) ethernet internet access I would like to see that dorm. The fastest connection I have *ever* gotten was ~1MB/sec, and that was to an on-campus computer. To get a 7 minute download, you would need gigabit ethernet working overtime. Infact, that wouldn't even be ehough. Gigabit ethernet, at full capacity, would give about 32 minutes for 4GB. I really would like to see the dorm wired with Fiber Channel. :-) Someone should point out how blatantly he is lying. sam th From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 10:53:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25239 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:53:04 -0400 Received: from dial163.roadrunner.com (dial163.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.163] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25236 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:53:01 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial163.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA00793 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:55:15 -0600 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:55:14 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607085513.A638@localhost> References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> <70arjs4ld5qng9aivj8orl97nkdc9mmlnb@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <70arjs4ld5qng9aivj8orl97nkdc9mmlnb@4ax.com>; from rongus@tiac.net on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:10:42PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:10:42PM -0400, Ron Gustavson wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:11:40 -0500 (CDT), sparky wrote: > > >http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm, if anyone > >feels like joining in. To be honest, I started it mainly to blow off > >steam, but what they hey. > > > [re: Schumann #7] > > A seven minute DVD delivery assumes that there are no T-1 or T-3 bottlenecks > between client and server. Also ideal fast ethernet data rates would be > subject to > actual real world multiple-user conditions. > > I think one T-1 in between would make the download take about 7 1/2 hours > (please check my math.) This is of course about the best one could expect from > cable or DSL as well. There goes your threat for even lossy MPEG-2 piracy. Presumabley Schumann knows these things --- that's why he bothered to push the "transfer" button on DeCSS and report _actually_ making a copy, but failed to do any tests transfering DVDs to document his, ummm, "forward looking and imaginative" 7 minutes. Schumann's ¶¶ 5,6 on electronic distribution are a data-free zone. The closest he comes to giving numbers that might be used to substantiate his flights of fancy are "explosive growth", "ubiquitous", "high ratio compression", "considerably" and "far reducing". In ¶ 7, at the conclusion, we finally get some numbers, but they are spec numbers, not data. No experiments. NO DATA. [ ... ] > His statement begs the question: perhaps the movie industry should > rethink the digital > distribution model rather than try to remake world law (and law > enforcement) to fit a > business decision. After all digital production is already saving > millions for them. > Perhaps DVD movies are a mistake. They've got 70 years invested in controlling access and thwarting first-sale --- it's a business model they understand and love. CSS semms primarily to be about protecting that business model, not acting as copy protection. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 11:15:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA25504 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:15:50 -0400 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 LAA25499 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:15:48 -0400 Received: from [38.32.77.171] (helo=ip171.bedford7.ma.pub-ip.psi.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu id 12zha7-0005sn-00; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:17:24 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q.4 Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 11:11:34 -0400 Message-ID: <6apsjsgd9hnkccjads0hd87lulcpfph0si@4ax.com> References: <20000606121853.Y2589@zork.net> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 LAA25501 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:02:03 +0300 (EET DST), Sampo A Syreeni wrote: >>So people here hope that the public will be _more_ sympathetic to the idea >>that the DMCA is like locking people out of their own homes? We, like the >>MPAA, know that copyright isn't like owning a house. So why argue on the >>MPAA's terms? > >I think the proper strategy is to stretch the analogy to show its futility >and the grave difference between IP and real property. Then use that to >bootstrap an introduction into a more fair headed representation, with some >Orwellianism added for flavor. Stretching... The MPAA owns all of the houses in the world that have roofs and gutters. They sell you one. The door is locked. It starts to rain... __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 11:15:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA25505 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:15:50 -0400 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 LAA25498 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:15:48 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA23740 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:17:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:17:23 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607101723.A23677@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net> <8hkmve$kn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <8hkmve$kn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from daw@cs.berkeley.edu on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:35:42PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:35:42PM -0700, David A. Wagner wrote: > In article <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net>, > Eric Seppanen wrote: > > 20. As I explained in my recent deposition, CSS is certainly not a > > weak encryption program; it was not "cracked" until some three years > > after it was embodied in authorized DVD players and discs and then, as > > stated above, only after the algorithm was disclosed. See Exh. 14. > > > > 21. The suggestion that CSS was a weak system because it was cracked > > is a meaningless test of its "effectiveness." As declarant Wagner > > acknowledges, the whole purpose of cryptography and security testing > > is to defeat security systems. According to Wagner, it is > > "fundamentally impossible" to secure any such system against the > > efforts of dedicated individuals. > > > > I think he's absolutely right here > > I disagree. The above takes quotes out of context and pieces them > together in a misleading manner. I say, 0 points. > > The fact is, the three year delay referred to above consisted of waiting > three years for the algorithm to be disclosed, then waiting a few weeks > for it to be broken. (Before it was disclosed, noone with any experience > in the field was likely to spend any of their valuable time on it.) > This is a reflection on how long it took before someone got interested > enough in the DVD system to reverse-engineer it, not a proof of the > strength of the system. > > Actually, I am not suggesting that the CSS stream cipher is weak merely > because it has been cracked. I am suggesting that it is weak because my > examination of the algorithm shows that it is susceptible to standard, > well-known, trivial attacks. I claim that if you have experience in > cryptanalysis of stream ciphers, you should recognize CSS immediately as > a probably-weak cipher; and if you spend a little bit of time thinking on > it (say, a day), you should be able to discover some of the known attacks. > The fact that it has been cracked is further evidence of this claim, but > is not the only evidence. > > When I finally looked at it at the algorithm (after Frank Stephenson had > posted a succinct description of it, in the introduction to his analysis), > I noticed one of CSS's fundamental weaknesses immediately (i.e., before I > could even get to the part where Frank Stephenson wrote about his attack). > > The CSS stream cipher is an algorithm that I would expect can be broken > as a homework exercise by graduate students. > > The quote that it is "fundamentally impossible" to prevent copying has > nothing to do with the cryptographic strength of the CSS stream cipher, > and everything to do with the possibility of reverse-engineering and > the existence of software players. > > It is comparably straightforward to build a stream cipher that will be > secure in practice. The DVD industry failed to do so. In comparison, > it is fundamentally impossible to build a secure copy protection system > that will resist dedicated attack when you deploy software players. > There is no contradiction in these two statements. I agree with everything you've said. Perhaps I worded my answer poorly. The way the various arguments have been strung together goes something like this: 1. Cryptologists should have the right to break weak encryption and publish the results. 2. Law shouldn't protect weak crypto. 3. Secure-client systems are a fundamentally weak and are easily broken if done in software. 4. Therefore, we should have the right to break any secure-client system and publish the results. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this. But 17 USC 1201 can be interpreted as protecting against #4. So this train of thought, while a good argument against 1201, is risky in MPAA vs. 2600. It's risky because it's essentially saying, "this law is stupid; here's why." I don't pretend to know much law, but it seems like poor strategy to essentially flout the law (even if the law _is_ stupid). Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 11:35:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA25725 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:35:01 -0400 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 LAA25722 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:34:55 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA17260 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:36:29 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:36:06 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ - Nightly Updates 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, 7 Jun 2000, Tim Neu wrote: > > To reduce the static, I will stop sending notices to the group every time > I repost the page. > > I will instead let you know any days which I am unable to update the FAQ. > > Unless you hear from me, there will be an update each night. (the date of > the last update will be obvious, since the date will be updated in the > page) > > (tonight's version has a little bit of HTML cleanup, along with today's > updates - still more is needed, but I'll work on it as I merge things). > > > Lots of takers on questions 4, 6, and 7. Do we want to polish these off > first before moving on, or should we try to get the entire framework built > and polish it all later? Post first, polish later. "Finishing" one part of a rebuttal before moving to the next part will slow everything down. Also, rewriting in general is best done with brief revisits to the material. time away from it refreshes the powers of perception as sleep does the mind. sparky > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > ______ _ __ "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 > / <_/ / / < / (_ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 11:36:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA25828 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:36:16 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA25825 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:36:15 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA09031 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:37:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:37:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann) In-Reply-To: <20000606232233.A22111@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 06/06/00 at 23:22, 'twas brillig and Eric Seppanen scrobe: [...] > > > > Eric wrote: > > > > > > > > > 13. Defendants contend that the use of DeCSS in connection with such > > > Internet piracy of movies is impractical, if not impossible. Thus, in > > > paragraph 10 of Matt Pavlovich's Declaration, there is a statement to > > > the effect that "[a]ny effort to simply play the unencrypted content > > > stored on a harddisc or other large medium would be futile, due to the > > > fact that there is no known player that can play from anything but a > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > DVD disc." This is wrong. Using DeCSS I copied and decrypted all of > ^^^^^^^^ [...] > > > He wins big-time here. Assuming he's right, he just caught our side in a > > > falsehood, and whether accidental or intentional, it's gonna hurt. 20 > > > points. [...] > OK, here's how I read it: > > Matt Pavlovitch says "there is no known player that can play from anything > but a DVD disc." This would imply, if true, that DeCSS cannot generate a > playable hard-drive copy of a movie. I'm not (completely) sure, and after a quick search through OpenLaw and Cryptome I can't seem to find a link to Matt's declaration to examine the context -- but I suspect what he *meant* was: "There is no known player that [will] play [CSS-encrypted data] from anything but a DVD disc." ...Which I believe *is* a true statement. Matt? Is this the case? Is that meaning obvious from context, and did RS just neatly and ingenuously excise the context-giving material? Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 11:48:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26315 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:48:24 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26312 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:48:24 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA09419 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:50:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:50:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann) 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 06/07/00 at 11:37, 'twas brillig and I opened my figurative mouth with: > On 06/06/00 at 23:22, 'twas brillig and Eric Seppanen scrobe: > [...] > > > > > > Eric wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > paragraph 10 of Matt Pavlovich's Declaration, there is a statement to > > > > the effect that "[a]ny effort to simply play the unencrypted content > > > > stored on a harddisc or other large medium would be futile, due to the > > > > fact that there is no known player that can play from anything but a > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > DVD disc." This is wrong. Using DeCSS I copied and decrypted all of [...] > "There is no known player that [will] play [CSS-encrypted > data] from anything but a DVD disc." Oops, nevermind. That'll teach me to skim instead of read. Sorry. -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 11:49:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26392 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:49:10 -0400 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 LAA26387 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:49:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA17868 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:50:45 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:50:44 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607010918.H2589@zork.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, 7 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > David A. Wagner writes: > > > In article <20000606223128.A21845@thud.reric.net>, > > Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > 20. As I explained in my recent deposition, CSS is certainly not a > > > weak encryption program; it was not "cracked" until some three years > > > after it was embodied in authorized DVD players and discs and then, as > > > stated above, only after the algorithm was disclosed. See Exh. 14. > > [David Wagner disputes Schumann's interpretation and assumptions] > > The technical inadequacies of CSS don't reflect a lack of ability on > the part of Matsushita or other firms involved in the process. They > reflect a conflict between the copyright industries and the consumer > electronics industries about what capabilities in a content > encryption system are appropriate at a particular point. I think what they really reflect is that the industry knew all along who they were trying to prevent from pirating. The movie industry spent the amount of money they spent (as opposed to more) and had Masushita make the weak system it did (and not stronger) because they were aiming it at the consumer. They knew it wouldn't stop bit-for-bit. Leaving aside Japanese crypto export regulations, of course. sparky > > ROT13 was an appropriate encryption mechanism for the purposes it > was set to on Usenet, once upon a time. CSS was perhaps similarly > appropriate for the purposes it was set to on DVDs, once upon a > time. Unfortunately, now we have to deal with 1201, which grants > special privilege to CSS not enjoyed by other comparable systems. > > Znlor crbcyr jub hfr EBG13 ba gurve wbxrf cbfgrq gb erp.uhzbe.shaal > pna hfr 1201 gb fhr gur TAH cebwrpg sbe qvfgevohgvat TAH ge. > > -- > 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 Jun 7 11:51:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26452 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:51:56 -0400 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 LAA26449 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:51:53 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA23892 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:53:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:53:29 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann) Message-ID: <20000607105329.A23873@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000606232233.A22111@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: ; from olc@cs.umass.edu on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:37:52AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:37:52AM -0400, Ole Craig wrote: > I said: > > OK, here's how I read it: > > > > Matt Pavlovitch says "there is no known player that can play from anything > > but a DVD disc." This would imply, if true, that DeCSS cannot generate a > > playable hard-drive copy of a movie. > > I'm not (completely) sure, and after a quick search through > OpenLaw and Cryptome I can't seem to find a link to Matt's declaration > to examine the context -- but I suspect what he *meant* was: > > "There is no known player that [will] play [CSS-encrypted > data] from anything but a DVD disc." It's here: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rb.htm#Pavlovich the full paragraph reads: 10. The Content Scrambling System (CSS) developed and licensed by the DVD CCA attempts to prohibit access to the data on a DVD in two ways. First, it uses a disc-locking utility (but only in computer DVD drives, not on home players) requiring the player software or a chip in the computer itself to exchange a "handshake" with the DVD. Second, and only after the DVD has been unlocked, the DeCSS utility decrypts the scrambled data on the DVD itself and the movies is permitted to play. DeCSS only allows the user to gain access to the unencrypted content; thus, the amateur "pirate" seeking to use the DeCSS he/she has downloaded from the Internet to copy DVDs must first find another utility to copy the data from a harddisk (or other large media storage device) to a blank DVD-R (very costly, explained below). Any effort to simply play the unencrypted content stored on a harddisk or other large medium would be futile, due to the fact that there is no known player that can play from anything but a DVD disk. Note it says "play the UNencrypted content". From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 11:55:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26501 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:55:10 -0400 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 LAA26498 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:55:08 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ziCC-0004ec-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:56:44 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:56:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607101723.A23677@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 Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > I agree with everything you've said. Perhaps I worded my answer poorly. > > The way the various arguments have been strung together goes something > like this: > > 1. Cryptologists should have the right to break weak encryption and > publish the results. > > 2. Law shouldn't protect weak crypto. > > 3. Secure-client systems are a fundamentally weak and are easily broken if > done in software. > > 4. Therefore, we should have the right to break any secure-client system > and publish the results. > > I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this. But 17 USC 1201 can be > interpreted as protecting against #4. So this train of thought, while a > good argument against 1201, is risky in MPAA vs. 2600. It's risky because > it's essentially saying, "this law is stupid; here's why." I don't > pretend to know much law, but it seems like poor strategy to essentially > flout the law (even if the law _is_ stupid). > > Eric I thisnk 1201 only comes into play once a cryptographer starts circumventing the access controls. Much research can be done on the underlying ciphers that does not mandate any circumvention. Scientific results that can be brought about without ever performing the act of circumvention should be outside the scope of this law. For the work that I did on CSS I never once needed to perform the act of circumvention. Neither is the anonymous source in itself capable of performing circumvention. The same goes for the C source codes that I published. I would argue that above resources should therefore be freely publishable. By shifting attention to DeCSS.exe RS tries to trick the cryptographic community to seek shelter under the encryption research exemption. This is stricly uneccecary, in as far as I know, no circumvetion has been done to date in the name of encryption research. frank -- `(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if-- `(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work; `(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research; `(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and `(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 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 Jun 7 12:05:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA26634 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:05:15 -0400 Received: from dns2.caprock-spur.com (mail.caprock-spur.com [216.167.146.4] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26631 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:05:14 -0400 Received: from caprock-spur.com ([216.167.146.124]) by dns2.caprock-spur.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65272U3000L300S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:04:25 -0500 Message-ID: <393E71D7.884A1737@caprock-spur.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 16:01:27 +0000 From: Ronald X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu" Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ. Q.4 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 while I de-lurk for a moment... I have always disliked this house analogy. Maybe it should be answered with a different analogy. Or is this one even worse? The MPAA & DVD-CAA own a theater. You buy a ticket (DVD) for $25 and you get to go into the theater and watch the movie named on the ticket (DVD) as long as you keep the ticket (DVD). It never costs you any more to see this movie. There is a catch however... In order to get into the theater you have to wear a bright orange vest and shoes (Licensed DVD Player) that will cost you $200. Now, around the corner is this guy (Open Source guy) giving away little cards (Unlicensed decription tools i.e. DeCSS). If you get one of these little cards (DeCSS) you can get in to the theater with out the orange vest and shoes. You still have to buy the ticket (DVD) but you don't have to buy or wear the orange vest and shoes. This is about being forced to buy and wear the orange vest and shoes, and not about getting into the theater. When you buy the ticket (DVD) you get permission to watch the movie, but the MPAA & DVD-CAA are tying the permission to watch the movie to the purchase of the orange vest and shoes (Licensed DVD player). This may be too simplistic because there are other issues also. But the MPAA's answer is not only simplistic but is blatantly wrong. Am I missing something? I will now resume lurk mode. Thank you for all of your hard work on this. Ron --- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 12:13:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA26763 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:13:35 -0400 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 MAA26760 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:13:33 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA18945 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:15:05 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:15:04 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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, 7 Jun 2000, sam tobin-hochstadt wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > There is a new declaration of Robert Schumann. It covers the > > practicalities of usage of DeCSS, among other things. Evidently, > > college students can download DVD movies in under 7 minutes. > > > > As a college student with (no longer) ethernet internet access I would > like to see that dorm. The fastest connection I have *ever* gotten was > ~1MB/sec, and that was to an on-campus computer. To get a 7 minute > download, you would need gigabit ethernet working overtime. Infact, that > wouldn't even be ehough. Gigabit ethernet, at full capacity, would give > about 32 minutes for 4GB. I really would like to see the dorm wired with > Fiber Channel. :-) > > Someone should point out how blatantly he is lying. > > sam th Well sam.. how'd you like the job? :) Actually what I mean is that I think the best way to address the Seven Minute Miracle is to insert responses such as the above, which make it clear that RS' statement approaches the level of opinion, as he is oversimplifying. I am reading all the comments to RS and will be adding in as much as I can. By the way Tim, I haven't forgotten my quote-unquote barrage.. I will try to get some more launchpad drafts for the rebuttal doc tonight. 2-3 questions every couple days seems a good speed anyway, if not too fast, based on the amount of discussion each question provokes. :) sparky > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 12:14:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA26821 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:14:38 -0400 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 MAA26818 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:14:36 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA23981 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:16:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:16:12 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607111612.A23923@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000607101723.A23677@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: ; from frank@funcom.com on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:56:44PM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:56:44PM +0200, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > I thisnk 1201 only comes into play once a cryptographer starts > circumventing the access controls. Much research can be done on the > underlying ciphers that does not mandate any circumvention. Scientific > results that can be brought about without ever performing the act of > circumvention should be outside the scope of this law. Oops. You're right. Maybe I should re-word the argument that I think works against us: 1. Cryptologists should have the right to break weak encryption and publish the results. 2. Law shouldn't protect weak crypto. 3. Secure-client systems are a fundamentally weak and are easily broken if done in software. 4. Cryptanalysis results should be publishable in any form, including full-blown "exploits". 5. Therefore, we should have the right to break any secure-client system and publish decryption programs. Re-written this way, 1-3 are all perfectly legitimate, but I suspect that 4,5 might sound bad to Kaplan. Apologies if it sounded like I was misreading your declaration or intentions. I'm putting together lots of arguments from different people. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 12:52:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA27453 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:52:27 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA27450 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:52:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02194 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:53:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:53:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ: Q6 In-Reply-To: <20000607121655.A29418@inka.de> 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, 7 Jun 2000, Sham Gardner wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 08:28:53PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > What John is saying (I think) is that while there are copyrights, the > > Constitution says nothing about how draconian the protection of copyright > > may be, > > I would disagree. The Constitution allows for copyrights to "promote ... the > useful arts". IMO that means that if and when the copyright system no longer > serves that purpose or even becomes detrimental to it, it becomes > unconstitutional. I agree with you. But I think perhaps I worded my earlier statement poorly. Between the paragraph before and the remainder of the quoted paragraph though I think that my point does still come across. However that sentence would have been better if I had said 'must' rather than 'may.' (I had been trying to say that the Constitution is in favor of _less_ copyrights and not more) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 13:03:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27632 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:03:27 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27629 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:03:26 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVS001MANBJ8C@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 10:27:43 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Schumann n.17 In-reply-to: <8hko5a$ls$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVS001MCNBJ8C@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 NAA27630 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu David Wagner wrote: > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > It's a blatant nonsequitur: > > Here's another one I have trouble following, in a similar vein: > > 16. [...] To the extent that the study of CSS itself is relevant, > defendants declarant, Wagner, acknowledges that there is little need > to do so because DeCSS "effectively . . substituted for or constituted > that part of the entire job of reverse engineering a DVD player." Wagner > Decl., ¶ 16. That is, DeCSS is not being used for study, but rather > for its decryption/copy function. Moreover, as another of defendants' > declarants acknowledged in a comment he made on the Internet about the > value of reverse engineering in this context: > [since] most cryptanalysts don't have the skills for > reverse-engineering (I find it tedious and boring), they never > bother analyzing the systems. This is why COMP128, CMEA, ORYX, > the Firewire cipher, the DVD cipher, and the Netscape PRNG were > all broken within months of their disclosure (despite the fact > that some of them have been widely deployed for many years); once > the algorithm is revealed, it's easy to see the flaw, but it might > take years before someone bothers to reverse-engineer the algorithm > and publish it. Contests don't help. > Statement of Bruce Schneier, August 26, 1999, Exh. 13. > > I am trying to understand his argument, but without much success. > > Reverse engineering is not a "decryption/copy function", I think. > It is, however, a common prerequisite to "study" or other analysis. > I'm also at a loss to understand how Schneier's statement is claimed > to support the statement that "DeCSS is not being used for study". > > Can anyone help me understand the logic here? I think they want to contruct a strange sort of pseudo-logic (vis-a-vis the Monty Python "she's a witch" sketch): "DeCSS was a reverse engineering" ... "Cryptographers don't reverse engineer in order to study" ... "therefore DeCSS is not being studied by Cryptographers". Incidentally, does there need to be a distinction between DeCSS and css-auth here? The first is a Windows program that was derived from the second by putting on a user interface, and supplying a "SaveAs ..." function. The second is the real source code that a cryptographer would be more interested in looking at. (Similarly developers would be interested in order construct DVD players of course ...) I suspect the distinction between the two files should be made, so that we more properly know exactly what we are talking about. (I.e., cryptographers are not interested in studying DeCSS, but rather css-auth.) On a related note I am wondering if anyone can explain the licence status of DeCSS. In particular, if it is covered under the GNU public licence, then does it make sense that the two files should be distributed together, or that a pointer to the source be provided in the DeCSS.zip archive? -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 13:12:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27777 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:12:30 -0400 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 NAA27774 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:12:28 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA21693 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:14:04 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:14:04 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann) 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, 7 Jun 2000, Ole Craig wrote: > On 06/06/00 at 23:22, 'twas brillig and Eric Seppanen scrobe: > [...] > > > > > > Eric wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 13. Defendants contend that the use of DeCSS in connection with such > > > > Internet piracy of movies is impractical, if not impossible. Thus, in > > > > paragraph 10 of Matt Pavlovich's Declaration, there is a statement to > > > > the effect that "[a]ny effort to simply play the unencrypted content > > > > stored on a harddisc or other large medium would be futile, due to the > > > > fact that there is no known player that can play from anything but a > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > DVD disc." This is wrong. Using DeCSS I copied and decrypted all of > > ^^^^^^^^ > [...] > > > > He wins big-time here. Assuming he's right, he just caught our side in a > > > > falsehood, and whether accidental or intentional, it's gonna hurt. 20 > > > > points. > [...] > > OK, here's how I read it: > > > > Matt Pavlovitch says "there is no known player that can play from anything > > but a DVD disc." This would imply, if true, that DeCSS cannot generate a > > playable hard-drive copy of a movie. > > I'm not (completely) sure, and after a quick search through > OpenLaw and Cryptome I can't seem to find a link to Matt's declaration > to examine the context -- but I suspect what he *meant* was: > > "There is no known player that [will] play [CSS-encrypted > data] from anything but a DVD disc." > > ...Which I believe *is* a true statement. Matt? Is this the > case? Is that meaning obvious from context, and did RS just neatly and > ingenuously excise the context-giving material? > This makes sense as an interpretation of what Matt may have meant, but in para 10 what he said was: "Any effort to simply play the unencrypted content stored on the harddisk or other large medium would be futile.." which is stated in what appears to be a context that DVD content must be moved to another disk to pirate it. In spite of my earlier enthusiasm I agree with Eric. It would be nice if matt could clarify. sparky > > Ole > -- > Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * > CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key > > Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 13:13:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27819 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:13:22 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27816 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:13:20 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVS001KNNS49X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 10:37:41 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-reply-to: <20000606135055.B1111@localhost> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVS001KONS49X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:53:41AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:53:41AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > There is a new declaration of Robert Schumann. It covers the > > practicalities of usage of DeCSS, among other things. Evidently, > > college students can download DVD movies in under 7 minutes. Woah! Well wait a second. Can someone reproduce this experiment? I don't have access to a T1/T3, I just have DSL. > > The declaration is available at: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-sds.htm > > Too bad for them this isn't an infringement case. That said, we still don't want to leave their arguement unchallenged. In fact if this claim can be proven wrong, and in fact, proven *very* wrong, then the copyright part of the case falls flat on its face. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 13:19:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27947 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:19:40 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27944 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:19:39 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVS0011CO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 10:45:29 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-reply-to: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 > >Already working on a reply, which I gladly submit to Openlaw Rewrite Press. :) > > >http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm, if anyone > >feels like joining in. > > Good start. In item 7 his claim, "A 5 gigabyte DVD disc image can be > transferred over a 100 Mbps ethernet link in under 7 minutes", is > ludicrous. He assumes a pathological case that does not exist. He ignores > overhead, network contention, etc... Indeed, for a computer to stream 5GB of information is actually kind of asking a lot. The 5GB has to live on a disc, and it has to run through non-cachable memory (since its all stream, there is no caching benefits.) Because of these limitations alone, it should be pointed out that the entire job is serial (and not even broadcast.) Serious piracy based on this kind of serial bottleneck is not practical. Pervasive piracy relies on some kind of efficient one-to-many duplication scheme, which this clearly is not. > To refute this claim I would pick a 5 mile stretch of NY Street as an > example (the more renowned the better ;-). I would compare his 7 minutes with > the 10 minutes the judge would need to drive this 26400 feet at 30 mph. > Obviously, this requires every stop light to be green when you get to the > intersection. It also assumes every driver will leave a clear path for you to > continue unimpeded at the 30 mph speed. That's fine for reasoning, however it would be better backed up with a real experiment. Surely someone here *is* a student with access to a T1/T3 kind of connection that can try this out just to see. (100MB would probably be sufficient, then just scale up from there.) -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 13:31:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28132 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:31:44 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28129 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:31:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02411 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:32:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:32:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann) 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, 7 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > This makes sense as an interpretation of what Matt may have meant, but in > para 10 what he said was: "Any effort to simply play the unencrypted > content stored on the harddisk or other large medium would be futile.." > which is stated in what appears to be a context that DVD content must be > moved to another disk to pirate it. In spite of my earlier enthusiasm I > agree with Eric. It would be nice if matt could clarify. Actually I had been thinking that he meant a DVD player for a TV; not DVD playing software for a computer. Obviously a stand-alone player is only going to play from discs - it's tied to it. But the statement is pretty vague. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 13:32:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28142 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:32:06 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28139 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:32:05 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVS001ZCOOF9X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 10:57:04 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-reply-to: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVS001ZFOOF9X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Amazingly he's more or less correct in that claim. > > While he's attempting to get us to infer that he is discussing a 100Mb > internet connection he actually is discussing a 100Mb Ethernet link. > > These are pretty common. And it's not at all impossible to get 1000Mb > ethernets. > > So if you were transferring the content of a DVD over a 100Mb _LAN_ he's > right. Well hang on a second there. Let's not get tricked into "just doing the math" here. I think we need verify this with actual experimentation before we know if even this is possible. There are a zillion bottlenecks that are possible in an operation like that, and it may not be possible to remove them. > [...] But the much smaller number of people capable of accessing other > nodes on the LAN as opposed to the internet makes this considerably less > damaging than he'd like us to think. (Judge: so the defendant made the > movie available for easy, fast download to an audience of two other > people, none of whom can easily share it outside of this group...) Indeed, an important point. > And yes, you're never going to get perfect ethernet connections; it's > actually a little inefficient with the packet collisions. Ethernet scales > well which is the great advantage of the stuff. It scales to point. I say the proof is in the pudding. Someone needs to try this out to see what the real transfer rate is, and see how parallelism affects this (multiple people trying to download the same file in a time staggered manner.) -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 13:36:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28265 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:36:59 -0400 Received: from dial253.roadrunner.com (dial253.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.253] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28260 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:36:56 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial253.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01600 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:39:04 -0600 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:39:03 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607113903.B638@localhost> References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com>; <20000606135055.B1111@localhost> <0FVS001KONS49X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <0FVS001KONS49X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>; from qed@pobox.com on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:37:41AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:37:41AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:53:41AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > There is a new declaration of Robert Schumann. It covers the > > > practicalities of usage of DeCSS, among other things. Evidently, > > > college students can download DVD movies in under 7 minutes. > > Woah! Well wait a second. Can someone reproduce this experiment? I don't > have access to a T1/T3, I just have DSL. There is no experiment. There is no data. There are only specification numbers. Take their ratio. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 13:42:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28323 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:42:29 -0400 Received: from dial253.roadrunner.com (dial253.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.253] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28320 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:42:23 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial253.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01608 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:44:40 -0600 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:44:39 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Schumann n.17 Message-ID: <20000607114439.C638@localhost> References: <8hko5a$ls$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <0FVS001MCNBJ8C@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <0FVS001MCNBJ8C@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>; from qed@pobox.com on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:27:43AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:27:43AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > David Wagner wrote: > > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > It's a blatant nonsequitur: > > > > Here's another one I have trouble following, in a similar vein: > > > > 16. [...] To the extent that the study of CSS itself is relevant, > > defendants declarant, Wagner, acknowledges that there is little need > > to do so because DeCSS "effectively . . substituted for or constituted > > that part of the entire job of reverse engineering a DVD player." Wagner > > Decl., ¶ 16. That is, DeCSS is not being used for study, but rather > > for its decryption/copy function. Moreover, as another of defendants' > > declarants acknowledged in a comment he made on the Internet about the > > value of reverse engineering in this context: > > [since] most cryptanalysts don't have the skills for > > reverse-engineering (I find it tedious and boring), they never > > bother analyzing the systems. This is why COMP128, CMEA, ORYX, > > the Firewire cipher, the DVD cipher, and the Netscape PRNG were > > all broken within months of their disclosure (despite the fact > > that some of them have been widely deployed for many years); once > > the algorithm is revealed, it's easy to see the flaw, but it might > > take years before someone bothers to reverse-engineer the algorithm > > and publish it. Contests don't help. > > Statement of Bruce Schneier, August 26, 1999, Exh. 13. > > > > I am trying to understand his argument, but without much success. > > > > Reverse engineering is not a "decryption/copy function", I think. > > It is, however, a common prerequisite to "study" or other analysis. > > I'm also at a loss to understand how Schneier's statement is claimed > > to support the statement that "DeCSS is not being used for study". > > > > Can anyone help me understand the logic here? > > I think they want to contruct a strange sort of pseudo-logic (vis-a-vis > the Monty > Python "she's a witch" sketch): "DeCSS was a reverse engineering" ... > "Cryptographers don't reverse engineer in order to study" ... "therefore > DeCSS is > not being studied by Cryptographers". This is one of his main modes of operation: take two non-equivalent things that have a non-null intersection, and argue from the implicit position that they are equivalent. 1. Copying and piracy. 2. She's a witch (Reverse engineering). 3. DeCSS and descrambling software in general. Which isn't to say that RS doesn't also take disjoint objects and graft them together. He does: (easily read text) iff (contains ideas). Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 13:44:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28419 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:44:43 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28416 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:44:43 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA13328 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:46:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:46:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.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 06/07/00 at 10:45, 'twas brillig and Paul Hsieh scrobe: [...] > > That's fine for reasoning, however it would be better backed up with > a real experiment. Surely someone here *is* a student with access to > a T1/T3 kind of connection that can try this out just to see. (100MB > would probably be sufficient, then just scale up from there.) I can do some time trials over 1. direct 100mb connection, no routers 2. typical high-end LAN situation, 100Mb switched ethernet 3. typical midrange LAN situation, 10/100 ethernet, multiple hubs and switches If someone connected somewhere outside UMass (but with a T1 reasonably close to a backbone) wants to coordinate with me, that would prolly also be useful data. Likewise, we have a 45Mb pipe to Internet2, so if there's someone at another university with a like setup we could test the current upper bound of WAN connectivity. Anyone wanna propose a methodology, or shall I muddle one out for myself? I'm thinking about a 1 or 1.5 gig single-file transfer using anon ftp and GNU time. (I picked that filesize 'cause linux and a couple other OS's have a 2G filesize limit in the current "stable" tree.) Test results should probably include a description of network hardware/capabilities, traceroutes, and ping times. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 13:47:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28483 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:47:10 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28480 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:47:09 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15524 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:48:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21343 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:48:44 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:48:44 -0500 (CDT) From: sam tobin-hochstadt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.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, 7 Jun 2000, Paul Hsieh wrote: > Indeed, for a computer to stream 5GB of information is actually kind of asking a > lot. The 5GB has to live on a disc, and it has to run through non-cachable > memory (since its all stream, there is no caching benefits.) Because of these > limitations alone, it should be pointed out that the entire job is serial (and not even > broadcast.) Serious piracy based on this kind of serial bottleneck is not practical. > Pervasive piracy relies on some kind of efficient one-to-many duplication scheme, > which this clearly is not. > That's fine for reasoning, however it would be better backed up with a real > experiment. Surely someone here *is* a student with access to a T1/T3 kind of > connection that can try this out just to see. (100MB would probably be sufficient, > then just scale up from there.) Unitl recently (how sad) I was just such a student. As I mentioned in an earlier email, I never got more than 1MB /sec (and that was too a local server). However, there are other concerns. For example, hard disk speed. I recently had the privilege of copying about 3GB of data between hd partition.s It took about 45 minutes. And ext2 is considered a fast filesystem. To go from DVD disc to computer w/o DVD drive in 7 minutes is totlally ludicrous. Based on some quick calulations, Schumann is assuming a transfer rate of 76Mb (bits) per second. This is faster than ATA-66 (which most peole don't have yet) and at the upper limit of what is achieveable with 100Mb ethernet, which the DO NOT install in colleges. 10Mb is what college kids get, and were glad to have it. But no one has 100Mb ethernet in their dorm room, and even if they did this would still be impossible. sam th From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 14:01:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28691 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:01:56 -0400 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 OAA28688 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:01:53 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA23719 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:03:29 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:03:29 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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, 7 Jun 2000, Ole Craig wrote: > On 06/07/00 at 10:45, 'twas brillig and Paul Hsieh scrobe: > [...] > > > > That's fine for reasoning, however it would be better backed up with > > a real experiment. Surely someone here *is* a student with access to > > a T1/T3 kind of connection that can try this out just to see. (100MB > > would probably be sufficient, then just scale up from there.) > > I can do some time trials over > 1. direct 100mb connection, no routers > 2. typical high-end LAN situation, 100Mb switched > ethernet > 3. typical midrange LAN situation, 10/100 ethernet, > multiple hubs and switches > If someone connected somewhere outside UMass (but with a T1 > reasonably close to a backbone) wants to coordinate with me, that > would prolly also be useful data. I'm at work with a T1 right now. I can download something if you tell me where it is. (I don't know how close it is to the backbone.. but my fingers are tingling, does that mean it's close? :) ) sparky > > Likewise, we have a 45Mb pipe to Internet2, so if there's > someone at another university with a like setup we could test the > current upper bound of WAN connectivity. > > Anyone wanna propose a methodology, or shall I muddle one out > for myself? I'm thinking about a 1 or 1.5 gig single-file transfer > using anon ftp and GNU time. (I picked that filesize 'cause linux and > a couple other OS's have a 2G filesize limit in the current "stable" > tree.) Test results should probably include a description of network > hardware/capabilities, traceroutes, and ping times. > > Ole > -- > Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * > CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key > > Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 14:11:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28906 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:11:19 -0400 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 OAA28903 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:11:18 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id NAA24304 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:12:53 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:12:53 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net>; from qed@pobox.com on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:45:29AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:45:29AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > >http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm, if anyone > > >feels like joining in. > > > > Good start. In item 7 his claim, "A 5 gigabyte DVD disc image can be > > transferred over a 100 Mbps ethernet link in under 7 minutes", is > > ludicrous. He assumes a pathological case that does not exist. He ignores > > overhead, network contention, etc... > > Indeed, for a computer to stream 5GB of information is actually kind of asking a > lot. The 5GB has to live on a disc, and it has to run through non-cachable > memory (since its all stream, there is no caching benefits.) Because of these Another thing that would be a lot of fun would be poking holes in his "$30 gets you 100Mbps" by actually showing costs of _internet_ bandwidth. Like, (making up numbers for this example): 56k modem: $20/mo. 208 hours to download a 5GB movie. 256kbps burstable DSL line: $50/mo. 45-200 hours depending on provider's traffic management. 256kbps dedicated-bandwidth DSL line: $200/mo. 45 hours. 1.544 Mbps T1 line: $1200/mo. 7.4 hours. 45 Mbps T3 line: $50,000/mo. 15 minutes. then you say, "and this guy expects us to believe that 100Mbps access only costs $30? Hell, it costs $50,000 per month for less than half that! Plaintiffs' sudden focus on college dorms, where there may be high-bandwidth networks inside the campus, is simply trying to distract us from the fact that the spectre of internet movie piracy is physically impossible." OK, then, what about that college dorm? Let's face it, if a dorm really has a 100mbps hub connecting me to the guy next door, I could probably share a 5GB movie file with him, assuming the sysadmins aren't monitoring the amount of traffic I send locally. OK, it wouldn't take 2 minutes, but it would be a fairly short time, and even 20 minutes would be good enough to make his argument. Is there a way to defeat his argument here? Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 14:27:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29161 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:27:10 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29158 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:27:09 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA14853 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:28:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:28:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 06/07/00 at 13:03, 'twas brillig and sparky scrobe: [...] > > I'm at work with a T1 right now. I can download something if you tell me > where it is. (I don't know how close it is to the backbone.. but my > fingers are tingling, does that mean it's close? :) ) Ok, let's try this. You'll need to let me know the hostname from which you'll be connecting, so's I can open up ftp to you. Give me about 10 minutes after sending that info (I've gotta tweak a few other things, and create the file) and then retrieve bigfile.foo from the directory /pub on hex.cs.umass.edu. In UR syntax, that's ftp://hex.cs.umass.edu/pub/bigfile.foo Other folks, let's try a clean (1 user) version before we do anything like staggered d/l tests.. Thanks, Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 14:29:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29259 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:29:23 -0400 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29256 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:29:22 -0400 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 01BEA99CAE; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A22938C0 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:30:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607131253.A24204@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 Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > OK, then, what about that college dorm? > > Let's face it, if a dorm really has a 100mbps hub connecting me to the guy > next door, I could probably share a 5GB movie file with him, assuming the > sysadmins aren't monitoring the amount of traffic I send locally. OK, it > wouldn't take 2 minutes, but it would be a fairly short time, and even 20 > minutes would be good enough to make his argument. > > Is there a way to defeat his argument here? Yeah. If a dorm has a 100mbps connection that only works in the dorm, he has no reason to copy it at all. The only reason to copy it is to watch it (he wouldn't want to copy it to store it permanently, since the drive space would cost more than buying another DVD); if he's in the same dorm, he can just watch it by walking over and asking to borrow it. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 14:33:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29312 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:33:35 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29309 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:33:33 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28502 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:34:58 -0500 Message-ID: <393E960A.BA4FDC85@mninter.net> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 13:35:54 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:53:41AM -0700 <0FVS001KONS49X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.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 I copied The Matrix in various ways from one computer to another on my 100Mbps full-duplex switched ethernet network. Besides these trials, there was no other network activity. Both were Windows 98 machines. The total size of the disc was 7.74 GB. This isn't exactly the scientific method at work... I came up with hypotheses about the limiting factor after completing the operation based just on an educated guess. The times are real, though, and that's the important part. In any case, using Windows 98, anyway, DVDs take a long time to copy, even from hard drive to hard drive over a switched 100Mbps network with no other traffic. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trial 1 Methodology: Map the DVD drive on computer L to drive E: on computer K. Make an empty folder on the desktop of computer K and attempt to copy the entire contents of the drive into the folder. Trial 1 Results: Windows forecast completion of the operation at 34 minutes. When the operation attempted to copy the CSS protected data, it reported that "the device does not recognize the command," and halted. Trial 2 Methodology: Begin the copy operation into an empty folder, wait for the operation to begin, and copy the drive again into a second empty folder to see how throughput was affected. Trial 2 Results: The second copy operation never began, presumably because the DVD drive was overburdened with the first operation, and held up the first operation indefinitely. Mini Trial 2.1: I tried to play The Matrix from K while it it was in mapped drive E: and every time I told the DVD software (Asus DVD which came with my GeForce 256) to play from Drive E: it instead played the Bjork DVD in Drive D:. This must be a software limitation. An attempt to do the same on computer L with Creative Labs Encore softare yields similar results. Trial 3a Methodology: At computer K, use DeCSS to decrypt The Matrix in the DVD drive on L and have the results put into an empty folder on the desktop. Trial 3a Results: DeCSS crashed. No files were decrypted or copied. Trial 3b Methodology: Map the C: drive on K to drive G: on L. Use DeCSS to decrypt the contents of The Matrix, and put them directly into in an empty folder on K. Perform all operations from computer L. Trial 3b Results: This operation took 80 minutes. At the operation's completion, all data files from the DVD were in the folder on K. Trial 3b Hypothesis: The limiting factor is DeCSS. Trial 4 Methodology: Copy the new decrypted files from drive C: on K to drive C: on L. Trial 4 Results: The operation took 64 minutes. Trial 4 Hypothesis: The bandwidth is limited by the operating system. Concurrent transfers woukd at least double the required time to complete the operation. Did I leave any permutation out? I have a Linux Machine on this network, but didn't try it because I suspect that the network protocol (samba) would increase the operation's overhead. I could also try FTP. -Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 14:38:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29365 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:38:33 -0400 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 OAA29362 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:38:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA25295 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:40:09 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:40:08 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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, 7 Jun 2000, Ole Craig wrote: > On 06/07/00 at 13:03, 'twas brillig and sparky scrobe: > [...] > > > > I'm at work with a T1 right now. I can download something if you tell me > > where it is. (I don't know how close it is to the backbone.. but my > > fingers are tingling, does that mean it's close? :) ) > > > Ok, let's try this. You'll need to let me know the hostname > from which you'll be connecting, so's I can open up ftp to you. Give > me about 10 minutes after sending that info (I've gotta tweak a few > other things, and create the file) and then retrieve I'm at www.classifiedventures.com. I hope that's what you need. sp > > bigfile.foo > > from the directory /pub on hex.cs.umass.edu. In UR syntax, > that's > > ftp://hex.cs.umass.edu/pub/bigfile.foo > > > Other folks, let's try a clean (1 user) version before we do > anything like staggered d/l tests.. > > Thanks, > Ole > -- > Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * > CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key > > Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 14:56:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29545 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:56:22 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29542 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:56:20 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zl1Y-0005G7-00; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 11:57:56 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:57:56 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607115756.I2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from sytobinh@midway.uchicago.edu on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 12:48:44PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sam tobin-hochstadt writes: > For example, hard disk speed. I recently had the privilege of copying > about 3GB of data between hd partition.s It took about 45 minutes. And > ext2 is considered a fast filesystem. Mmmm, if you're copying trees from a filesystem, it is slower than just copying a single huge file. However fast ext2 is, there is still a need to seek to and update metadata throughout the copy. And the result of trying to copy a huge file locally is still slower than trying to copy to or from the network. When you copy within a hard drive, the system will read to fill a buffer at the source, then seek to the destination, then write, then seek back to the source... (Buffers can be made larger and larger so that there is _less_ seeking, but you can't eliminate it entirely unless you can read the whole file into RAM.) On the other hand, with a copy to or from the network, it may be possible to read or write an entire file sequentially, with no seeking. (With some filesystems, metadata updates might remain cached in RAM for the entire duration of the copy operation.) If both sides are doing that, you could imagine a situation where a network copy (over a LAN?) is _faster_ than a local disk copy. Seek latencies can be _huge_! -- 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 Jun 7 15:01:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA29707 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:01:24 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29703 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:01:23 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zl6R-0005Ga-00; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 12:02:59 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:02:59 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607120259.J2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from arromdee@rahul.net on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:30:57AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ken Arromdee writes: > On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > OK, then, what about that college dorm? > > > > Let's face it, if a dorm really has a 100mbps hub connecting me to the guy > > next door, I could probably share a 5GB movie file with him, assuming the > > sysadmins aren't monitoring the amount of traffic I send locally. OK, it > > wouldn't take 2 minutes, but it would be a fairly short time, and even 20 > > minutes would be good enough to make his argument. > > > > Is there a way to defeat his argument here? > > Yeah. If a dorm has a 100mbps connection that only works in the dorm, he > has no reason to copy it at all. The only reason to copy it is to watch it > (he wouldn't want to copy it to store it permanently, since the drive space > would cost more than buying another DVD); if he's in the same dorm, he can > just watch it by walking over and asking to borrow it. I lived in a dorm where person X would listen to person Y's CDs while person Y was asleep, because Y had ripped them to MP3 and shared them on an SMB share. In fact, X could listen to Y's CDs even if they weren't friends, for the same reason. Or they could both listen to Y's CDs at the same time, while studying in their own rooms. By a similar scheme, person X could continue to listen to person Y's CDs even after both had moved out of the dorm. When did you folks last live in a dorm? :-) I can make a lot of arguments about how this in itself isn't a dramatic explosion of copyright infringement, but certainly unauthorized copying of multimedia files on college LANs is something that anybody in a college dorm is probably familiar with right now. -- 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 Jun 7 15:10:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA29829 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:10:23 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29826 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:10:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02876 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:11:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:11:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607120259.J2589@zork.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, 7 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > I lived in a dorm where person X would listen to person Y's CDs while > person Y was asleep, because Y had ripped them to MP3 and shared them > on an SMB share. In fact, X could listen to Y's CDs even if they > weren't friends, for the same reason. Or they could both listen to > Y's CDs at the same time, while studying in their own rooms. > > By a similar scheme, person X could continue to listen to person Y's > CDs even after both had moved out of the dorm. > > When did you folks last live in a dorm? :-) > > I can make a lot of arguments about how this in itself isn't a > dramatic explosion of copyright infringement, but certainly > unauthorized copying of multimedia files on college LANs is something > that anybody in a college dorm is probably familiar with right now. Copying, yes. I'm unsure if (with current technology anyway) two people could watch a DVD on a single computer, one locally, one over the network. Unless they were in sync, seek times might kill that idea. Copying of course is not such a big issue. But the question still remains, is it constitutional to bar all fair use and public domain copying and the access that's a prerequsite to copying and post-first sale/public domain use? While it may or may not be technically feasible, law-wise Schumann can't answer that question w/o destroying his argument, so we should call attention to that. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 15:11:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA29882 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:11:31 -0400 Received: from dial74.roadrunner.com (dial74.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.74] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29871 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:11:28 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial74.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02072 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:13:42 -0600 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:13:41 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607131341.A1671@localhost> References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com>; <0FVS001KONS49X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> <393E960A.BA4FDC85@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <393E960A.BA4FDC85@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:35:54PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Disk drive type (IDE-whatever/SCSI-2/3), Motherboard bus type, ethernet card types, RAM size, CPU model number, O/S release versions? Paul Fenimore On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:35:54PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > I copied The Matrix in various ways from one computer to another on my > 100Mbps full-duplex switched ethernet network. Besides these trials, > there was no other network activity. Both were Windows 98 machines. The > total size of the disc was 7.74 GB. [ ... ] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 15:25:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30067 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:25:56 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30064 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:25:54 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zlUB-0005Jm-00; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 12:27:31 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:27:31 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607122731.K2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000607120259.J2589@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from cpt@gryphon.auspice.net on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:11:21PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Joshua Stratton writes: > But the question still remains, is it constitutional to bar all fair use > and public domain copying and the access that's a prerequsite to copying > and post-first sale/public domain use? While it may or may not be > technically feasible, law-wise Schumann can't answer that question w/o > destroying his argument, so we should call attention to that. Schumann seems more like a geek than like a lawyer -- he's saying, well, you know, if I were a technically savvy person, I think I _could_ use this for piracy, so let's deflate defendants' claims that that's ridiculous. And he misinterprets a few things and makes a few rhetorical shots of the sort that all the people on _our_ side like to make in declarations, but basically he's got a decent point -- you can't maintain a blanket claim that no piracy will happen through DeCSS, or that it's hard to imagine. In fact, I think he found a mistake in Chris DiBona's comments about copying VOBs. On the bright side, he confirmed what I thought about how CSS works. :-) So I've updated my "dvdtable.html" based on Schumann's declaration. But legal issues? Well, then we're back to "copying is bad", right? -- 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 Jun 7 15:26:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30160 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:26:37 -0400 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30156 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:26:36 -0400 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 3802999CBD; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D164938C0 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:28:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607120259.J2589@zork.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, 7 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > If a dorm has a 100mbps connection that only works in the dorm, he > > has no reason to copy it at all. The only reason to copy it is to watch it > > (he wouldn't want to copy it to store it permanently, since the drive space > > would cost more than buying another DVD); if he's in the same dorm, he can > > just watch it by walking over and asking to borrow it. > I lived in a dorm where person X would listen to person Y's CDs while > person Y was asleep, because Y had ripped them to MP3 and shared them > on an SMB share. In fact, X could listen to Y's CDs even if they > weren't friends, for the same reason. Or they could both listen to > Y's CDs at the same time, while studying in their own rooms. Ripping the CD to MP3 and sharing it requires that the MP3 file be able to reasonably fit on the hard drive of the person sharing it. DVDs are too big to be shared this way. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 15:27:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30220 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:27:08 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30208 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:27:07 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01832 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:28:44 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393E9533.CAECFEEE@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 13:32:19 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ. Q.4 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 house analogy is pretty bad, but it can be easily turned around and used to show how insane this law is. I suppose that playing the analogy game isn't the most productive approach, but what the heck. One more round. I appreciate the comments on my previous postings. Did I get the details right this time? ------------ = ------------- THE LOCK You have purchased a new house. At the closing, you are presented with your house keys, and you drive to your new home. All is well, until you try and move in. Then you discover that sometimes the door lock opens, and sometimes it doesn't. You visit the contractor to inquire about the apparently defective door lock. The conversation goes like this: You: I'm having trouble with the door lock. Sometimes it doesn't open. Him: Oh, you must be trying to bring a camera or writing materials into the house. That isn't allowed. You: What? Please explain! Him: Gladly! You see, my job is to build houses. I hire architects to build the houses. They are artists, and the floor plans and architectural features in your house are copyrighted works. Your house has a special lock on it that detects if you are trying to bring a camera or writing materials into your house and keeps the door from opening if you do. You: Why? Him: Because if you were allowed to bring a camera or pencil and paper into your house, you could take pictures of the copyrighted architecture, or make blueprint drawings of the house structure, then turn around and give those to another contractor, who could build houses from those plans. If everyone did that, architects would make no money, and no one would want to be an architect. We can't have that, can we? You: But I have no intention of doing that! I just want to take pictures of my family, and I need writing materials and paper to write letters and pay bills! Him: Sorry, but I just can't take that chance. Your pictures of your family might have the walls and staircase in the background, and those pictures would infringe on my architectural copyrights. You: Well, I'll just hire a locksmith to change the lock. Him: That would be illegal, and I'll sue you if you try! You see, when I was designing this special lock, I figured that thieves like you would try and remove the lock, so I had a special law passed that makes it illegal to remove the lock. You: But I own the house! I paid good money for it, and I resent being called a thief! Him: You only paid for the physical house. I am the owner of the copyright on the design of the house. You: But certainly I have the right to take pictures inside my own house? Him: That would be "fair use", but this is different. I installed a lock. You: What does that have to do with anything? The contractor passes you a copy of the law. You read: A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. Him: The lock is a technological measure. My law makes it illegal for you to bypass my lock. You: What kind of crazy, mixed up law is that? Him: Actually, I'm rather proud of that law. I helped to write it, and I think it's great! You: Well, I don't think that you have the right to tell me what I can and can't do in my own house. Him: See you in court. --------------- = ---------------- "DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 15:33:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30284 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:33:14 -0400 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 PAA30281 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:33:11 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA24589 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:34:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:34:47 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607143447.A24494@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: ; from sytobinh@midway.uchicago.edu on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 12:48:44PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 12:48:44PM -0500, sam tobin-hochstadt wrote: > > Based on some quick calulations, Schumann is assuming a transfer rate of > 76Mb (bits) per second. This is faster than ATA-66 (which most peole > don't have yet) and at the upper limit of what is achieveable with 100Mb > ethernet, which the DO NOT install in colleges. 10Mb is what college kids > get, and were glad to have it. But no one has 100Mb ethernet in their > dorm room, and even if they did this would still be impossible. ATA-66 supports 66 megaBYTE per second transfers. That's 528 megaBITS per second, theoretically enough to fill a 100Mbps ethernet link. While disks can't continuously read data at that rate, it's fairly easy for a decent PC to read disk data fast enough to swamp a 100Mbps ethernet link. The trick is it has to be in one file to keep the overhead low, so I suspect that's why your 3GB copy took so long. I like the argument that 10Mbps is more common, that's 70 minutes, assuming you get to use _all_ available bandwidth. I find that a lot less palatable. Especially when, as someone pointed out, they can just walk over and _borrow_ the damn thing anyway. That argument actually can get a lot of mileage: MPAA can't show that internet piracy is possible, so they've narrowed it down to a tiny campus. So let's assume for the moment that campus copying is possible. There's still no way to effectively more than one or two movies, so nobody's going to have a gigantic "pirated movie library". All they can possibly do is copy, play, then delete to free space, then copy another, play it, delete it, etc. And on campus, borrowing is unpreventable and easy anyway (not to mention legal), so it's hard to argue that campus copying is somehow going to affect movie economics. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 15:47:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30424 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:47:40 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30421 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:47:39 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05400 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:49:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393E9A04.24C67312@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 13:52:52 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] a weak argument 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 Sorry, but I think that the argument that "DeCSS doesn't enable people to send movies over the internet because that would require too much time/bandwidth" is just a weak argument. You could have said that about MP3s ten years ago, and you'd have been right. Even if you can't realistically FTP a movie today, based on trends in networking technology, you'll be able to do so very soon., and once the factories that are busily churning out millions and millions of blank CDRs retool and start churning out millions and millions of blank DVD-Rs, the cost of storing those movies will fall to a dollar or two at most. This is obvious to me, at least, and I don't think it will be very hard to convince the court of that. My question is, is it legally appropriate for the MPAA to obtain an injunction against a technology that may, at some point in the future, be used to infringe copyright, or do they have the burden of demonstrating meaningful current infringement? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 16:00:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA30635 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:00:15 -0400 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 QAA30632 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:00:14 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA28870 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:01:50 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:01:50 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607143447.A24494@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 Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > I like the argument that 10Mbps is more common, that's 70 minutes, > assuming you get to use _all_ available bandwidth. I find that a lot less > palatable. Especially when, as someone pointed out, they can just walk > over and _borrow_ the damn thing anyway. > > That argument actually can get a lot of mileage: MPAA can't show that > internet piracy is possible, so they've narrowed it down to a tiny campus. I've just started thinking that the whole college-kid thing is a big red herring, statistically speaking. AFter all, college kids have *always* done this music trading - oops piracy that is - that social group more than any other tosses music back and forth however they can, they let people listen to their music, they loan it (during which time it is not only copied but probably copied several times), mixes, you name it.. Also, college kids (kids in general) are those who spend the most money on music. How does that factor in? Not in any way beneficial to RS line of thinking IMO. Anyone think of other problems along these lines? I think the real line of attack in the whole college kid/Seven Minute Miracle is that RS is stepping into a statistical quagmire, and he presents himself as able to represent that quagmire in a few sentences. sparky > So let's assume for the moment that campus copying is possible. There's > still no way to effectively more than one or two movies, so nobody's going > to have a gigantic "pirated movie library". All they can possibly do is > copy, play, then delete to free space, then copy another, play it, delete > it, etc. And on campus, borrowing is unpreventable and easy anyway (not > to mention legal), so it's hard to argue that campus copying is somehow > going to affect movie economics. > > Eric > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 16:07:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA30857 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:07:19 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA30854 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:07:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 32375 invoked by uid 502); 7 Jun 2000 20:13:20 -0000 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:13:20 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607161320.D31888@linuxpower.org> References: <20000607120259.J2589@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Ken Arromdee on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 12:28:11PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 12:28:11PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > If a dorm has a 100mbps connection that only works in the dorm, he > > > has no reason to copy it at all. The only reason to copy it is to watch it > > > (he wouldn't want to copy it to store it permanently, since the drive space > > > would cost more than buying another DVD); if he's in the same dorm, he can > > > just watch it by walking over and asking to borrow it. > > I lived in a dorm where person X would listen to person Y's CDs while > > person Y was asleep, because Y had ripped them to MP3 and shared them > > on an SMB share. In fact, X could listen to Y's CDs even if they > > weren't friends, for the same reason. Or they could both listen to > > Y's CDs at the same time, while studying in their own rooms. > > Ripping the CD to MP3 and sharing it requires that the MP3 file be able to > reasonably fit on the hard drive of the person sharing it. DVDs are too big > to be shared this way. This year. But next year? -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 16:22:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31054 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:22:47 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA31051 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:22:46 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10915 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:24:24 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393EA240.289E04E0@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 14:28:00 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Don't you obtain "authority" to access DVDs when you buy a player? 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 >From the text of the DMCA: (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means ... to decrypt an encrypted work ... without the authority of the copyright owner; ... If I purchase a hardware DVD player, or a computer DVD drive bundled with DVD playing software, I presumably obtain authorization at that time to use that DVD player to decrypt encrypted DVDs using the built-in DeCSS implementation. I assume that both sides agree on that point. No one is claiming that using vendor-supplied DVD software to play DVDs is illegal. That's the whole point of a DVD player. Could one argue that authorization to decrypt DVDs was granted at the time that the hardware was purchased, and that people using DeCSS are simply exercising this previously granted authorization using alternate means? After all, DeCSS is useless without a DVD drive to read the encrypted data stream from, so presumably each and every user of DeCSS has already obtained authorization to execute the DeCSS algorithm against commercial DVDs at the time they purchased the DVD hardware that implements the DeCSS algorithm. One could argue that each and every user of DeCSS has already obtained authority to execute the DeCSS algorithm against commercial DVDs by virtue of their purchase of a licensed player product. This would contrast with a program designed, for instance, to descramble a satellite broadcast, where the user had not obtained any authorization. Also, would the requirement that only the vendor-supplied software be used with the vendor-supplied hardware constitute an illegal tying? I don't know if these issues have been discussed. I'm trying to catch up on the old messages, but there's a lot of them. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 16:31:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31470 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:31:19 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA31467 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:31:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 32495 invoked by uid 502); 7 Jun 2000 20:37:21 -0000 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:37:21 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Don't you obtain "authority" to access DVDs when you buy a player? Message-ID: <20000607163721.E31888@linuxpower.org> References: <393EA240.289E04E0@uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <393EA240.289E04E0@uic.edu>; from John Schulien on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 02:28:00PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 02:28:00PM -0500, John Schulien wrote: > >From the text of the DMCA: > > (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means > ... to decrypt an encrypted work ... > without the authority of the copyright owner; ... > > If I purchase a hardware DVD player, or a computer > DVD drive bundled with DVD playing software, > I presumably obtain authorization at that time to use > that DVD player to decrypt encrypted DVDs using the > built-in DeCSS implementation. I assume that both > sides agree on that point. No one is claiming that > using vendor-supplied DVD software to play DVDs > is illegal. That's the whole point of a DVD player. The "authorization" issue is very tricky, because the folks who make the DVD players aren't the copyright holders. They *can't* give you authorization, since they - Matsushita, for example - don't own the copyrights to the material you're trying to view. Imagine a DVD produced by Universal. Universal owns the copyright on that film; they and they alone can grant authorization to decrypt that work. If I buy a Panasonic DVD player, unless there is some sort of contractual arrangement between Matsushita (who owns Panasonic) and Universal stating that authorization is granted upon purchase of a DVD player (which there is not to the best of my knowledge), then I still have to gain authorization from Universal. Conventionally it's thought that formal authorization is granted upon the legal purchase of the DVD. Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 16:42:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31570 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:42:03 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA31567 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:42:02 -0400 Received: (qmail 32548 invoked by uid 502); 7 Jun 2000 20:48:06 -0000 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:48:06 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net>; from Eric Seppanen on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:12:53PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:12:53PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:45:29AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > > >http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm, if anyone > > > >feels like joining in. > > > > > > Good start. In item 7 his claim, "A 5 gigabyte DVD disc image can be > > > transferred over a 100 Mbps ethernet link in under 7 minutes", is > > > ludicrous. He assumes a pathological case that does not exist. He ignores > > > overhead, network contention, etc... > > > > Indeed, for a computer to stream 5GB of information is actually kind of asking a > > lot. The 5GB has to live on a disc, and it has to run through non-cachable > > memory (since its all stream, there is no caching benefits.) Because of these > > > Another thing that would be a lot of fun would be poking holes in his "$30 > gets you 100Mbps" by actually showing costs of _internet_ bandwidth. > > Like, (making up numbers for this example): > > 56k modem: > $20/mo. 208 hours to download a 5GB movie. > > 256kbps burstable DSL line: > $50/mo. 45-200 hours depending on provider's traffic management. > > 256kbps dedicated-bandwidth DSL line: > $200/mo. 45 hours. > > 1.544 Mbps T1 line: > $1200/mo. 7.4 hours. > > 45 Mbps T3 line: > $50,000/mo. 15 minutes. > > then you say, "and this guy expects us to believe that 100Mbps access > only costs $30? Hell, it costs $50,000 per month for less than half that! > Plaintiffs' sudden focus on college dorms, where there may be > high-bandwidth networks inside the campus, is simply trying to distract > us from the fact that the spectre of internet movie piracy is physically > impossible." Careful. He didn't exactly say that $30 gets you 100Mbps access. What he said was that the *adapter* can run well below $30, which is absolutely true. Assuming that this is the only cost the end-user has, then $30 does the job rather nicely. It's been a while for me, so answer this.. how much is the average college student, living in a dorm, paying for that 100Mbps local access - so long as they already have the ethernet card? -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 16:51:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31716 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:51:14 -0400 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 QAA31713 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:51:12 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA24838 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:52:48 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:52:48 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:48:06PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:48:06PM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:12:53PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > > 45 Mbps T3 line: > > $50,000/mo. 15 minutes. > > > > then you say, "and this guy expects us to believe that 100Mbps access > > only costs $30? Hell, it costs $50,000 per month for less than half that! > > Plaintiffs' sudden focus on college dorms, where there may be > > high-bandwidth networks inside the campus, is simply trying to distract > > us from the fact that the spectre of internet movie piracy is physically > > impossible." > > Careful. He didn't exactly say that $30 gets you 100Mbps access. What he > said was that the *adapter* can run well below $30, which is absolutely > true. Assuming that this is the only cost the end-user has, then $30 does > the job rather nicely. My wording is extremely harsh, and would need to be toned down in any reply. I realize that he never said precisely that. But he's clearly trying to get the court to believe $30 -> 100Mbps -> 2 minute movie downloads, dancing around the facts to avoid saying anything provably false. But his intention seems clear to me and I think it'd seem clear to the court if somebody calls him on it. > It's been a while for me, so answer this.. how much is the average college > student, living in a dorm, paying for that 100Mbps local access - so long > as they already have the ethernet card? Can we agree that it's probably somewhere between $0 and $50 per month? If so, the exact amount shouldn't matter if the comparison number is $50,000 per month for a T3. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 17:03:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31930 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:03:23 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31927 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:03:22 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:05:21 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C14@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:05:11 -0700 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 All he can really say then, is "no known browser can do X" in just the same manner we said "no known player can do Y" earlier. Both statements were equally correct -and- equally incorrect. He knew of a player that could play from something other than a DVD, we know of (or can make ) browsers than can make non-tagged URLs clickable. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Andrew Stevenson [mailto:frank@funcom.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 1:36 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann > > > The RedHat / Gnome URLs are right mouse button clickable. > A meny will then pop up, where "Open in browser" is an option. > However, when this option is selected, the browser fails to appear > on my particular setup. Does anyone have this feature working ? > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > 24. Finally, defendants suggest that browser programs of users > > automatically convert plaintext references to hyperlinks > without any > > action on the part of the person who posted the > plaintext reference, > > e.g., on a web page. > > > > We better tread lightly here. Did somebody suggest that _browsers_ > > actually do this, or just email clients? We better not > stretch this so > > far that we get caught in a lie. 5 points. (note: while > writing this I > > realized that using the lynx browser in a "gnome-terminal" > [gnome xterm > > clone] the terminal is highlighting text URLs and changing > the pointer, > > implying that they're clickable. On a Redhat machine they don't do > > anything when clicked, but clearly the functionality we're > looking for is > > there...) > > 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 Jun 7 17:12:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA32047 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:12:47 -0400 Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA32044 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:12:46 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihep.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.69.217]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04914 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:14:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006072114.RAA04914@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 17:14:30 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Discovery Abuse 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 We offer the FGKS/2600 June 1 letter to Judge Kaplan on MPAA discovery abuse which recapitulates failure of the plaintiffs to provide documents and depondents: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-dis.htm (65K) Included is a list of 33 MPAA depondents noticed by 2600. A hearing on discovery is scheduled for tomorrow, June 8. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 17:22:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA32324 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:22:14 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA32321 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:22:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 330 invoked by uid 502); 7 Jun 2000 21:28:20 -0000 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:28:20 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net>; from Eric Seppanen on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:52:48PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:52:48PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:48:06PM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:12:53PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > > > > 45 Mbps T3 line: > > > $50,000/mo. 15 minutes. > > > > > > then you say, "and this guy expects us to believe that 100Mbps access > > > only costs $30? Hell, it costs $50,000 per month for less than half that! > > > Plaintiffs' sudden focus on college dorms, where there may be > > > high-bandwidth networks inside the campus, is simply trying to distract > > > us from the fact that the spectre of internet movie piracy is physically > > > impossible." > > > > Careful. He didn't exactly say that $30 gets you 100Mbps access. What he > > said was that the *adapter* can run well below $30, which is absolutely > > true. Assuming that this is the only cost the end-user has, then $30 does > > the job rather nicely. > > My wording is extremely harsh, and would need to be toned down in any > reply. I realize that he never said precisely that. But he's clearly > trying to get the court to believe $30 -> 100Mbps -> 2 minute movie > downloads, dancing around the facts to avoid saying anything provably > false. But his intention seems clear to me and I think it'd seem clear to > the court if somebody calls him on it. The question here isn't whether the intent is to show that not everyone is running 56K America Online accounts, but whether or not the numbers work. Schumann's points in items 7 and 8 are basically this: 1. Currently, the largest demographic of individuals engaging in illegal copying and Internet distribution of copyrighted material are college-age students. 2. Most universities provide wideband, 100Mbps Internet connections in the dorms. 3. A simple ethernet card capable of taking advantage of those connections, for a regular PC, can cost less than $30. Therefore, the demographic most likely to be engaging in Internet distribution of DVD content also coincidentally is the demographic that has easy access to very low-cost, wideband Internet service. What he's doing is confronting the mythology that *we're* trying to perpetrate that says that everyone out there is running 56K dialups. Unless we can factually knock out at least one of these three points, their intentions are irrelevant and his point stands. > > > It's been a while for me, so answer this.. how much is the average college > > student, living in a dorm, paying for that 100Mbps local access - so long > > as they already have the ethernet card? > > Can we agree that it's probably somewhere between $0 and $50 per month? > If so, the exact amount shouldn't matter if the comparison number is > $50,000 per month for a T3. I have no idea; I'd like to hear from some actual college students - or even better, from some actual colleges - regarding this question. What you and I agree on means nothing here. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 17:38:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA32582 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:38:12 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA32579 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:38:11 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:40:13 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C15@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Dec laration of Robert W. Schumann) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:40:10 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Seppanen [mailto:eds@reric.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 8:53 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New > Declaration of Robert W. Schumann) > > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:37:52AM -0400, Ole Craig wrote: > > I said: > > > OK, here's how I read it: > > > > > > Matt Pavlovitch says "there is no known player that can > play from anything > > > but a DVD disc." This would imply, if true, that DeCSS > cannot generate a > > > playable hard-drive copy of a movie. > > > > I'm not (completely) sure, and after a quick search through > > OpenLaw and Cryptome I can't seem to find a link to Matt's > declaration > > to examine the context -- but I suspect what he *meant* was: > > > > "There is no known player that [will] play [CSS-encrypted > > data] from anything but a DVD disc." > > It's here: > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rb.htm#Pavlovich > > the full paragraph reads: > > 10. The Content Scrambling System (CSS) developed and > licensed by the > DVD CCA attempts to prohibit access to the data on a DVD in > two ways. > First, it uses a disc-locking utility (but only in computer > DVD drives, > not on home players) requiring the player software or a chip in the > computer > itself to exchange a "handshake" with the DVD. Second, and > only after > the DVD has been unlocked, the DeCSS utility decrypts the > scrambled data > on the DVD itself and the movies is permitted to play. > DeCSS only allows > the user to gain access to the unencrypted content; thus, > the amateur > "pirate" seeking to use the DeCSS he/she has downloaded from the > Internet to copy DVDs must first find another utility to > copy the data > from a harddisk (or other large media storage device) to a > blank DVD-R > (very costly, explained below). Any effort to simply play the > unencrypted content stored on a harddisk or other large > medium would be > futile, due to the fact that there is no known player that > can play from > anything but a DVD disk. > > Note it says "play the UNencrypted content". > > Yark! A big and embarassing typo from our side. I am certain that what was meant was that there is nothing that would play the ENcrypted content from anything other than a DVD. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 18:03:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00595 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:03:26 -0400 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 SAA00592 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:03:24 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA25022 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:05:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:05:00 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:28:20PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:28:20PM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:52:48PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > > My wording is extremely harsh, and would need to be toned down in any > > reply. I realize that he never said precisely that. But he's clearly > > trying to get the court to believe $30 -> 100Mbps -> 2 minute movie > > downloads, dancing around the facts to avoid saying anything provably > > false. But his intention seems clear to me and I think it'd seem clear to > > the court if somebody calls him on it. > > The question here isn't whether the intent is to show that not everyone is > running 56K America Online accounts, but whether or not the numbers work. > > Schumann's points in items 7 and 8 are basically this: > > 1. Currently, the largest demographic of individuals engaging in illegal copying > and Internet distribution of copyrighted material are college-age students. > > 2. Most universities provide wideband, 100Mbps Internet connections in the dorms. > > 3. A simple ethernet card capable of taking advantage of those connections, for > a regular PC, can cost less than $30. > > Therefore, the demographic most likely to be engaging in Internet distribution > of DVD content also coincidentally is the demographic that has easy access to > very low-cost, wideband Internet service. > > What he's doing is confronting the mythology that *we're* trying to perpetrate > that says that everyone out there is running 56K dialups. Unless we can factually > knock out at least one of these three points, their intentions are irrelevant > and his point stands. A. His focus on bandwidth requirements essentially admit that movie piracy (both serving and downloading movies) is impossible for 99% of the internet. This is an important point and we should take the opportunity to insure the judge got it. B. The part that's wrong is #2 above. Universities may provide 100Mbps connections to their LAN. They are _not_ providing 100Mbps bandwidth to the internet. Kind of a big difference, don't you think? C. (repeating myself) If the terrible flood of copyright infringement is limited to students living in common campus housing, it basically shoots down a lot of the rhetoric spouted by MPAA in the early days of the case. I think this is also important because if Kaplan was swayed by the rhetoric spouted back then, he might be less than pleased upon learning it's a lie. D. If the defense implied that everyone had 56K modems that's wrong. But for the plaintiffs to imply that everyone has 100Mbps bandwidth is a lot worse. E. OK, you're right, they're demonstrating a scenario where copyright infringement of DVD movies is probably technically possible. But if the court considers the possibility of infringement the same way they would in a contributory infringement case, they'll probably want to weigh the mangnitude and difficultly of the infringement. There's nothing sleazy about pointing out that moving 5GB files is so difficult as to be impossible for 99.9% of the population. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 18:10:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00753 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:10:21 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f12.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA00750 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:10:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 95386 invoked by uid 0); 7 Jun 2000 22:11:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20000607221127.95385.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 208.41.124.35 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 15:11:27 PDT X-Originating-IP: [208.41.124.35] From: "Richard Ramos" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:11:27 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ----Original Message Follows---- From: greslin@linuxpower.org Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:28:20 -0400 On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:52:48PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:48:06PM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:12:53PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > > > > 45 Mbps T3 line: > > > $50,000/mo. 15 minutes. > > > > > > then you say, "and this guy expects us to believe that 100Mbps access > > > only costs $30? Hell, it costs $50,000 per month for less than half that! > > > Plaintiffs' sudden focus on college dorms, where there may be > > > high-bandwidth networks inside the campus, is simply trying to distract > > > us from the fact that the spectre of internet movie piracy is physically > > > impossible." > > > > Careful. He didn't exactly say that $30 gets you 100Mbps access. What he > > said was that the *adapter* can run well below $30, which is absolutely > > true. Assuming that this is the only cost the end-user has, then $30 does > > the job rather nicely. > > My wording is extremely harsh, and would need to be toned down in any > reply. I realize that he never said precisely that. But he's clearly > trying to get the court to believe $30 -> 100Mbps -> 2 minute movie > downloads, dancing around the facts to avoid saying anything provably > false. But his intention seems clear to me and I think it'd seem clear to > the court if somebody calls him on it. The question here isn't whether the intent is to show that not everyone is running 56K America Online accounts, but whether or not the numbers work. Schumann's points in items 7 and 8 are basically this: 1. Currently, the largest demographic of individuals engaging in illegal copying and Internet distribution of copyrighted material are college-age students. 2. Most universities provide wideband, 100Mbps Internet connections in the dorms. I know when I was in college, a couple years ago, the best data transfer I could get was about 10Mbps. I know we had 100Mbps technology around and some Giga-ethernet avail. Now they have access to Internet2, but I doubt they still get more than 10Mbps. This is because I know they laid Cat 3 cables through our dorms and to use 100Mbps you need Cat 5 cable. 3. A simple ethernet card capable of taking advantage of those connections, for a regular PC, can cost less than $30. Therefore, the demographic most likely to be engaging in Internet distribution of DVD content also coincidentally is the demographic that has easy access to very low-cost, wideband Internet service. What he's doing is confronting the mythology that *we're* trying to perpetrate that says that everyone out there is running 56K dialups. Unless we can factually knock out at least one of these three points, their intentions are irrelevant and his point stands. > > > It's been a while for me, so answer this.. how much is the average college > > student, living in a dorm, paying for that 100Mbps local access - so long > > as they already have the ethernet card? > > Can we agree that it's probably somewhere between $0 and $50 per month? > If so, the exact amount shouldn't matter if the comparison number is > $50,000 per month for a T3. I have no idea; I'd like to hear from some actual college students - or even better, from some actual colleges - regarding this question. What you and I agree on means nothing here. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 18:17:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00989 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:17:48 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00986 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:17:45 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (jeffw@firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA26033 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:19:23 -0400 Message-ID: <393ECA56.344A747B@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 18:19:02 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15pre19-dvd i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:53:41AM -0700 <0FVS001KONS49X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> <393E960A.BA4FDC85@mninter.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 Chris Moseng wrote: > I copied The Matrix in various ways from one computer to another on my > 100Mbps full-duplex switched ethernet network. Besides these trials, > there was no other network activity. Both were Windows 98 machines. The > total size of the disc was 7.74 GB. > > This isn't exactly the scientific method at work... I came up with > hypotheses about the limiting factor after completing the operation > based just on an educated guess. The times are real, though, and that's > the important part. > > In any case, using Windows 98, anyway, DVDs take a long time to copy, > even from hard drive to hard drive over a switched 100Mbps network with > no other traffic. Ill summarize here rather the interspersing. 1) Trials 1,2.1,3a: I'm glad someone actually tried to read from a network mapped drive. It appears that DeCSS and CSS enabled players need direct access to the DVD-ROM. Microsofts file transport scheme does not allow it. 2) Trail 3b: Perhaps a crappy old 1x DVD player? In anycase I find that css-auth running on linux can decrypt and copy a 18MB vob in about a second, CPU = 500 MHZ Athlon. 3) OS limitations: for anything that must do reliable transport (e.g. TCP, Microsoft shareing) there must be acknowledgements of the packets sent. TCP is stream oriented and uses a sliding window who knows what microsoft does. Both emchanisms must employ some scheme to avoid congestion. TCP uses the sliding window concept again to avoid congestion, and I guess MS must do similar. Basically this induces a need in the OS to maintain a buffer on both sides large enough to cope with the bandwidth-delay product. Bandwidth-delay is an important concept. It works like this. T3 can do 45 Mbits/sec but if you ftp a file from a T3 ftp site, then there's a delay in the time the packets are sent and when they are acknowledged, if packets are sent faster then they are acknowledged, then TCP will keep sending until it's window is full and then stop. So, to be optimal, this window must correspond to the amount such a connection can keep in transit between the 2 points. A typical round trip time on the internet is say 120 ms. If we multiply 45 Mbits/sec by .120 s round trip, we get 675000 bytes must be in transit at all times to fully utilize the connection. Until recently, the biggest TCP window possible is 65535 bytes while the biggest socket level OS buffer is also 65535. So it is impossible using old TCP to fully utilize a log-haul T3 OS's will probably slowly adopt the new RFC to cope with the problem. Currently, the default socket buffer size in linux is still 65535 (10 times too small). Lets take 100 Mbit ethernet for example. Say a round trim time of 10 ms. We get a bandwidth delay product of 1 Mbit or 125000 bytes. Making the socketbuffer half as large as it should be. I believe MS is probably by default 8K (many many many times too small). 3) direct TCP using both sides linux is a good test,yes I can't here as my ethernet cables/hub are only rated at 10 Mbits/sec. -Jeff > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Trial 1 Methodology: Map the DVD drive on computer L to drive E: on > computer K. Make an empty folder on the desktop of computer K and > attempt to copy the entire contents of the drive into the folder. > > Trial 1 Results: Windows forecast completion of the operation at 34 > minutes. When the operation attempted to copy the CSS protected data, it > reported that "the device does not recognize the command," and halted. > > Trial 2 Methodology: Begin the copy operation into an empty folder, wait > for the operation to begin, and copy the drive again into a second empty > folder to see how throughput was affected. > > Trial 2 Results: The second copy operation never began, presumably > because the DVD drive was overburdened with the first operation, and > held up the first operation indefinitely. > > Mini Trial 2.1: I tried to play The Matrix from K while it it was in > mapped drive E: and every time I told the DVD software (Asus DVD which > came with my GeForce 256) to play from Drive E: it instead played the > Bjork DVD in Drive D:. This must be a software limitation. An attempt to > do the same on computer L with Creative Labs Encore softare yields > similar results. > > Trial 3a Methodology: At computer K, use DeCSS to decrypt The Matrix in > the DVD drive on L and have the results put into an empty folder on the > desktop. > > Trial 3a Results: DeCSS crashed. No files were decrypted or copied. > > Trial 3b Methodology: Map the C: drive on K to drive G: on L. Use DeCSS > to decrypt the contents of The Matrix, and put them directly into in an > empty folder on K. Perform all operations from computer L. > > Trial 3b Results: This operation took 80 minutes. At the operation's > completion, all data files from the DVD were in the folder on K. > > Trial 3b Hypothesis: The limiting factor is DeCSS. > > Trial 4 Methodology: Copy the new decrypted files from drive C: on K to > drive C: on L. > > Trial 4 Results: The operation took 64 minutes. > > Trial 4 Hypothesis: The bandwidth is limited by the operating system. > Concurrent transfers woukd at least double the required time to complete > the operation. > > Did I leave any permutation out? I have a Linux Machine on this network, > but didn't try it because I suspect that the network protocol (samba) > would increase the operation's overhead. I could also try FTP. > > -Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 18:24:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA01531 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:24:33 -0400 Received: from dial102.roadrunner.com (dial102.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.102] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01528 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:24:30 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial102.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04050 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:26:50 -0600 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:26:49 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607162648.A3920@localhost> References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net>; from eds@reric.net on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:05:00PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In the spirit of back-of-the-neuron calculations, for the purpose of ascertaining plausibility: On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:05:00PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: [ ... ] > E. OK, you're right, they're demonstrating a scenario where copyright > infringement of DVD movies is probably technically possible. But if the > court considers the possibility of infringement the same way they would in > a contributory infringement case, they'll probably want to weigh the > mangnitude and difficultly of the infringement. There's nothing sleazy > about pointing out that moving 5GB files is so difficult as to be > impossible for 99.9% of the population. About 1/4 or 1/3 of U.S. residents attend college after graduating from high school. 4 years in college. Live for approx. 80 year. Order of magnitude, 1% of U.S. residents are college students. I'll try to get a real number this evening. What fraction live in a dorm and also have T1 or T3 or FDDI to their dorm room, I don't know. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 18:32:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA01682 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:32:57 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA01652 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:27:52 -0400 Received: (qmail 682 invoked by uid 502); 7 Jun 2000 22:33:44 -0000 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:33:44 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607183344.J31888@linuxpower.org> References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net>; from Eric Seppanen on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:05:00PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:05:00PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:28:20PM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:52:48PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > > > > My wording is extremely harsh, and would need to be toned down in any > > > reply. I realize that he never said precisely that. But he's clearly > > > trying to get the court to believe $30 -> 100Mbps -> 2 minute movie > > > downloads, dancing around the facts to avoid saying anything provably > > > false. But his intention seems clear to me and I think it'd seem clear to > > > the court if somebody calls him on it. > > > > The question here isn't whether the intent is to show that not everyone is > > running 56K America Online accounts, but whether or not the numbers work. > > > > Schumann's points in items 7 and 8 are basically this: > > > > 1. Currently, the largest demographic of individuals engaging in illegal copying > > and Internet distribution of copyrighted material are college-age students. > > > > 2. Most universities provide wideband, 100Mbps Internet connections in the dorms. > > > > 3. A simple ethernet card capable of taking advantage of those connections, for > > a regular PC, can cost less than $30. > > > > Therefore, the demographic most likely to be engaging in Internet distribution > > of DVD content also coincidentally is the demographic that has easy access to > > very low-cost, wideband Internet service. > > > > What he's doing is confronting the mythology that *we're* trying to perpetrate > > that says that everyone out there is running 56K dialups. Unless we can factually > > knock out at least one of these three points, their intentions are irrelevant > > and his point stands. > > A. His focus on bandwidth requirements essentially admit that movie > piracy (both serving and downloading movies) is impossible for 99% of the > internet. This is an important point and we should take the opportunity > to insure the judge got it. This "admission" is only what people want to read into it. Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see anything in the Schumann piece that admitted anything of the sort. "impossible for 99% of the internet" is an hyperbole and just screams out "invented statistic". To start with, "impossible" is an extremely strong word - "impractical" is much more accurate. "99%" is also a groundless statistic - if we're going to quote percentiles, they should be backed up. > B. The part that's wrong is #2 above. Universities may provide 100Mbps > connections to their LAN. They are _not_ providing 100Mbps bandwidth to > the internet. Kind of a big difference, don't you think? If that's the case, then yes, I would. > C. (repeating myself) If the terrible flood of copyright infringement is > limited to students living in common campus housing, it basically shoots > down a lot of the rhetoric spouted by MPAA in the early days of the case. > I think this is also important because if Kaplan was swayed by the > rhetoric spouted back then, he might be less than pleased upon learning > it's a lie. Which comes back a point that has been made over and over again: what they're saying to the press is very different than what they're saying in court. I assume the "rhetoric" you're referring to is the public relations garbage they were spewing back around Jan-Mar 2000. None of that really matters. What matters is whether or not they're contradicting themselves in court. > D. If the defense implied that everyone had 56K modems that's wrong. But > for the plaintiffs to imply that everyone has 100Mbps bandwidth is a lot > worse. I'd say that they were about the same. As it stands, I haven't read anything from the defense stating in court that everyone had 56K modems. This has just been a discussion position within the community over the months. There's an emotional incentive to believe that most people are getting their files via extremely low-bandwidth connections; it makes our position easier to argue. Unfortunately it's mainly wrong. > E. OK, you're right, they're demonstrating a scenario where copyright > infringement of DVD movies is probably technically possible. But if the > court considers the possibility of infringement the same way they would in > a contributory infringement case, they'll probably want to weigh the > mangnitude and difficultly of the infringement. There's nothing sleazy > about pointing out that moving 5GB files is so difficult as to be > impossible for 99.9% of the population. Once again.. "impossible" is a word we need to be cautious about. A lot of folks hear the word "impossible" - which is defined as an absolute - and stop thinking. If we're going to argue the practicalities of DVD piracy for the general Internet user, then we need to call it that rather than labeling it "impossible". We also need to acknowledge that tech tends to leap forward in big jumps. By focusing too much on the practicalities of Internet DVD piracy, we open ourselves up to the argument that everything could change in the next year - which is a real possibility. By the end of 2001, it's very possible that high-volume file transfers will be much more practical than today. Don't think that won't be recognized by the court. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 18:43:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA01993 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:43:32 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01990 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:43:31 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA25559 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:45:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:45:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607170500.A24972@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 06/07/00 at 17:05, 'twas brillig and Eric Seppanen scrobe: > > B. The part that's wrong is #2 above. Universities may provide 100Mbps > connections to their LAN. They are _not_ providing 100Mbps bandwidth to > the internet. Kind of a big difference, don't you think? Absolutely correct. Here at the University of Massachusetts, students in some (not all) residence halls have access to 10Mb ethernet jacks. These are connected to a dorm-only network that is "artificially" separated from the campus FDDI ring, so that the students cannot swamp our 12Mb/s link to the internet. I believe the max throughput across that router is 1250 Kbits/sec. Moreover, as others have mentioned his "5Gb/7min/100Mbs" figure is ridiculous on even a sparsely-populated 100Mbit LAN. After Sparky is finished testing the transfer rate between his T1-linked workstation and my own, I'll do some tests tomorrow between machines on our internal switched fast-ethernet (100Mb/s) network, and I'll guarantee you the times will be nothing like. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 18:45:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA02019 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:45:29 -0400 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 SAA02011 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:45:16 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA25142 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:46:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:46:28 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607174628.A25091@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <20000607162648.A3920@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <20000607162648.A3920@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:26:49PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:26:49PM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > About 1/4 or 1/3 of U.S. residents attend college after graduating from > high school. 4 years in college. Live for approx. 80 year. > > Order of magnitude, 1% of U.S. residents are college students. I'll try > to get a real number this evening. > > What fraction live in a dorm and also have T1 or T3 or FDDI to their dorm > room, I don't know. www.census.gov says: 1990 total population: 248,709,873 number enrolled in college: 17,917,028 that's 7.2%. wow. I would still guess that the number of those in dorms with ethernet jacks is pretty small <<1% of population, but I don't think that kind of information is out there. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 18:52:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA02330 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:52:57 -0400 Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA02327 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:52:56 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihep.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.69.217]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA22429 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:54:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 18:54:45 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607183344.J31888@linuxpower.org> References: <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.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 During argument yesterday about whether DeCSS has been actually used to make illegal copies, and the MPAA's inability to show a single example despite screaming to the press about the threat, Judge Kaplan cut off debate, saying, "let me assure you that if the plaintiffs cannot provide evidence of illegal copying as alleged in the complaint, this matter will be brought to an immediate close." Opposing counsel and the courtroom went silent. From down DC way a shriek was heard from Jack Valenti: get Schumann cracking. Bob pecked his box: "l0pht, patch me into Bulgaria, MoRE's got a job." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 19:07:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02622 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:07:58 -0400 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 TAA02619 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:07:57 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA25213 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:09:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:09:33 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607180933.A25180@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: ; from olc@cs.umass.edu on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 06:45:05PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 06:45:05PM -0400, Ole Craig wrote: > On 06/07/00 at 17:05, 'twas brillig and Eric Seppanen scrobe: > > > > B. The part that's wrong is #2 above. Universities may provide 100Mbps > > connections to their LAN. They are _not_ providing 100Mbps bandwidth to > > the internet. Kind of a big difference, don't you think? > > Absolutely correct. Here at the University of Massachusetts, Idea: what if 100 large college system administrators were polled on the subject? Would the results be compelling to the court? Q1. What speed of data connection is available to students in dorms? Q3. What would you say is the realistic speed of the dorm connections, taking into account typical traffic patterns on university networks, Q3a. to another dorm room? Q3b. to the internet at large? Q4. Would students be prevented, for bandwidth reasons, from transferring exceptionally large files, Q4a. to another dorm room? Q4b. What file size would you say would be excessive? Q4c. to the internet at large? Q4d. What file size would be excessive here? Q5. Do you permit student dorm computers to offer file-sharing capabilities to the internet at large? Q6. Do you have procedures in place for preventing students from using student dorm data connections to duplicate copyrighted material? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 19:20:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02976 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:20:33 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA02973 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:20:32 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03156 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:22:09 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393ECBEB.E81A388B@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 17:25:47 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 > "impossible for 99% of the internet" is an hyperbole and just screams out > "invented statistic". To start with, "impossible" is an extremely strong > word - "impractical" is much more accurate. "99%" is also a groundless > statistic - if we're going to quote percentiles, they should be backed up. Definitely not impossible. I recently downloaded 2G of data to my desktop machine over a standard ethernet connection, and although excruciating, it was definitely possible. Besides, the existance of programs like divx really, really hurts this argument. Even though divx reduces the picture quality, it reduces the bandwidth requirement from ~10GB to ~1GB of data, which leaves them still able to make the argument that DeCSS enables one to turn a DVD into an internet-distributable file. "Impossible for most internet users" is not a winning argument in the long term. I think that a much better strategy would be to focus on the question of at what point a user, becomes "authorized" to play a DVD that they have purchased. There is no contract between the manufacturer and purchaser of a DVD requiring the purchaser to use a manufacturer-authorized deck that I'm aware of. What legal authority do they have to insist that users can only use approved equipment to read their works? Especially, on what legal authority can they insist this after millions of DVDs have already been sold. An acceptable outcome, in my mind, would be a ruling that access occurs when a person purchases a DVD, for instance, or pays for a month of cable TV access, and that because 1201 explicitly says that it does not affect fair use, "access" and "use" should be treated as separate, and 1201 should only cover "access" Pursuing the argument that DeCSS is irrelevant because internet copying of DVDs is impractlcal in June, 2000 just makes the defense look like it has a much weaker defense then it does, and detracts from the real issue -- that this lawsuit is really an attempt to use the courts to enforce the secret arrangement between the player manufacturers and the software manufacturers to monopolize the DVD software/player market by tying the two products together with encryption technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 19:43:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA03182 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:43:13 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA03179 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:43:08 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04324 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:44:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:44:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <393ECBEB.E81A388B@uic.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, 7 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: > I think that a much better strategy would be to focus on the question of > > at what point a user, becomes "authorized" to play a DVD that they have > purchased. There is no contract between the manufacturer and purchaser > of a DVD requiring the purchaser to use a manufacturer-authorized deck > that I'm aware of. What legal authority do they have to insist that > users can > only use approved equipment to read their works? Especially, on what > legal authority can they insist this after millions of DVDs have already > been > sold. > > An acceptable outcome, in my mind, would be a ruling that access occurs > when > a person purchases a DVD, for instance, or pays for a month of cable TV > access, and that because 1201 explicitly says that it does not affect > fair use, > "access" and "use" should be treated as separate, and 1201 should only > cover "access" Well I would suggest that 1) once first sale occurs (thus acquiring access) that the access limitation be bound to holder of the DVD itself (or a replacement in the case of archives) so that fair use (e.g. loaning the DVD) be fully exercisable 2) that access restrictions take into account the inevitability of works entering the public domain (technically anyway - despite the MPAA members fighting that too) where access and copying are free, so we'll need the tools to do it to be available Access is of course, a prerequsite to use. Interfering with access in order to exercise fair use is effectively interference with fair use, which isn't ok. (Of course IIRC satellite tv & possibly cable tv skirt around this by being services... it's weird) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 20:00:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03384 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:00:47 -0400 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 UAA03381 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:00:45 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id TAA25374 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:02:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:02:22 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607190222.A25344@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <393ECBEB.E81A388B@uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <393ECBEB.E81A388B@uic.edu>; from jms@uic.edu on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:25:47PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:25:47PM -0500, John Schulien wrote: > "Impossible for most internet users" is not a winning argument in the > long term. > > I think that a much better strategy would be to focus on the question of > at what point a user, becomes "authorized"... > Pursuing the argument that DeCSS is irrelevant because internet copying > of DVDs is impractlcal in June, 2000 just makes the defense look like it > has a much weaker defense then it does, and detracts from the real issue Well, actually I agree with you. I think it's a weak argument. But I don't advance it as a way to win the case, but rather to control the damage the plaintiffs are trying to do. They've already said "look at all the horrible things that are about to happen", and their vision is scary-- it's trying to convince Kaplan that the economic damage to the plaintiffs outweighs all the free speech and other implications. I don't mean to say "look, since the horrible scenario is a fraction of the size they make it out should be, the case should go to the defendants." I mean to say "look, since their horrible scenario is a fraction of the size they make it out to be, it can't overwhelm the defense arguments." It's trying to minimize the damage so that the _real_ arguments (free speech, fair use, first sale, antitrust, commerce-clause-bounds, ...) can get their due consideration. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 20:02:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03536 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:02:37 -0400 Received: from dial82.roadrunner.com (dial82.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.82] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03533 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:02:35 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial82.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA04937 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:04:54 -0600 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:04:53 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607180452.A4919@localhost> References: <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <20000607183344.J31888@linuxpower.org> <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 06:54:45PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 06:54:45PM -0400, John Young wrote: > During argument yesterday about whether DeCSS has been actually > used to make illegal copies, and the MPAA's inability to show a > single example despite screaming to the press about the threat, > Judge Kaplan cut off debate, saying, "let me assure you that if > the plaintiffs cannot provide evidence of illegal copying as alleged > in the complaint, this matter will be brought to an immediate close." Gasp. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 20:55:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03886 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:55:56 -0400 Received: from mrs-1.smartworld.net (mrs-1-fix.smartworld.net [216.70.64.24]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03883 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:55:55 -0400 Received: from winuser (ppp-451.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.33.197]) by mrs-1.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA59216 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:57:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001e01bfd0e4$2b76f380$c5212640@winuser> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net><4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov><0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net><20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net><20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org><20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net><20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org><20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:54:51 -0400 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 > During argument yesterday about whether DeCSS has been actually > used to make illegal copies, and the MPAA's inability to show a > single example despite screaming to the press about the threat, > Judge Kaplan cut off debate, saying, "let me assure you that if > the plaintiffs cannot provide evidence of illegal copying as alleged > in the complaint, this matter will be brought to an immediate close." I think the MPAA fell into the trap of its own words. The judge and his staff have probably caught on to the fact there is a substantial question here; and that the MPAA has been less than honest in its presentation of the case. This does not mean we "win", it just means the fight will be more fair than some have suggested earlier. Last fall, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson taught my Federal Trial Practice Class. He left us with a number of pieces of advice, one of which was "never, ever try to pull the wool over a judge's eyes." While he never referred to the trial, look at the fixed demonstrations MS tried to pull last year, and look what happened to them today. The moral: be careful words can be backed up with facts, and be honest about weaknesses. This case is a balancing test between the right to property and the right to free speech. While I'm relieved the plaintiff has been caught with their pants partly down, it could easily happen to the defendant. Tread carefully. Eventually, however... The MPAA will be able to find an example of copying, though they may have difficulty finding one that requires use of DeCSS. The "DivX" thing seems contrived-look at the page of sampe trailers; what "hacker" would choose that cross section of movies? In any case, even if they find such an example, it is simple to show DeCSS is unnecessary to copy a movie in the lossy formats available for internet transfer. As for the Schumann declaration, I am most interested in his statement that DeCSS violates the reproduction right because it makes a copy of the decrypted VOB file on the user's hard drive. I am forced to wonder how the DVD license grant (for home use only) could be construed not to include his, when it is a necessary step to view the movie. If a permanent copy is left on the hard drive (rather than a transitory copy) does this violate the reproduction right of the copyright holder? Or is it like Betamax time-shifting and RIO case space-shifting? Doesn't it depend on the scope of the home license grant? It seems his entire claim is based on their position that you need an entirely different license to access the work. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 21:38:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04167 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:38:18 -0400 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 VAA04164 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:38:16 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zmyj-0005pn-00 for ; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 16:03:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:03:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ. Q.4 In-Reply-To: <393E9533.CAECFEEE@uic.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 You know, I didn't really like the idea of fighting analogies with analogies, but I like this one. I think we should prefix this with a statement regarding the difference between intellectual property and real property. That way, we can tell everybody how the analogy doesn't really apply, but also provide a very clear look at how this analogy would be, if were it accurate. Thus the analogy is not really applicable, AND it is deceiving. That way we can stay out of the "bad analogy" business and still provide a real eye-opening rebuttal. On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: > The house analogy is pretty bad, but it can be > easily turned around and used to show how > insane this law is. > > I suppose that playing the analogy game isn't > the most productive approach, but what the > heck. One more round. > > I appreciate the comments on my previous > postings. Did I get the details right this time? > > ------------ = ------------- > > THE LOCK > > You have purchased a new house. At the closing, > you are presented with your house keys, and you > drive to your new home. > > All is well, until you try and move in. Then you > discover that sometimes the door lock opens, and > sometimes it doesn't. > > You visit the contractor to inquire about the > apparently defective door lock. The conversation > goes like this: > > You: I'm having trouble with the door lock. Sometimes > it doesn't open. > > Him: Oh, you must be trying to bring a camera or > writing materials into the house. That isn't allowed. > > You: What? Please explain! > > Him: Gladly! You see, my job is to build houses. > I hire architects to build the houses. They are > artists, and the floor plans and architectural features > in your house are copyrighted works. Your house > has a special lock on it that detects if you are trying > to bring a camera or writing materials into your house > and keeps the door from opening if you do. > > You: Why? > > Him: Because if you were allowed to bring a camera > or pencil and paper into your house, you could take > pictures of the copyrighted architecture, or make > blueprint drawings of the house structure, then turn > around and give those to another contractor, who > could build houses from those plans. If everyone > did that, architects would make no money, and no > one would want to be an architect. We can't have > that, can we? > > You: But I have no intention of doing that! I just want > to take pictures of my family, and I need writing materials > and paper to write letters and pay bills! > > Him: Sorry, but I just can't take that chance. Your > pictures of your family might have the walls and > staircase in the background, and those pictures > would infringe on my architectural copyrights. > > You: Well, I'll just hire a locksmith to change the lock. > > Him: That would be illegal, and I'll sue you if you try! > You see, when I was designing this special lock, I > figured that thieves like you would try and remove the > lock, so I had a special law passed that makes it > illegal to remove the lock. > > You: But I own the house! I paid good money for it, > and I resent being called a thief! > > Him: You only paid for the physical house. I am the > owner of the copyright on the design of the house. > > You: But certainly I have the right to take pictures > inside my own house? > > Him: That would be "fair use", but this is different. > I installed a lock. > > You: What does that have to do with anything? > > The contractor passes you a copy of the law. You read: > > A) No person shall circumvent a technological > measure that effectively controls access to a work > protected under this title. > > Him: The lock is a technological measure. My law > makes it illegal for you to bypass my lock. > > You: What kind of crazy, mixed up law is that? > > Him: Actually, I'm rather proud of that law. I helped > to write it, and I think it's great! > > You: Well, I don't think that you have the right to > tell me what I can and can't do in my own house. > > Him: See you in court. > > --------------- = ---------------- > > "DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house." > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:41:34 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA17781; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:43:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:43:12 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006080143.VAA17781@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ole Craig wrote: >On 06/07/00 at 10:45, 'twas brillig and Paul Hsieh scrobe: >[...] >> >> That's fine for reasoning, however it would be better backed up with >> a real experiment. Surely someone here *is* a student with access to >> a T1/T3 kind of connection that can try this out just to see. (100MB >> would probably be sufficient, then just scale up from there.) > > I can do some time trials over > 1. direct 100mb connection, no routers > 2. typical high-end LAN situation, 100Mb switched > ethernet > 3. typical midrange LAN situation, 10/100 ethernet, > multiple hubs and switches > If someone connected somewhere outside UMass (but with a T1 >reasonably close to a backbone) wants to coordinate with me, that >would prolly also be useful data. > > Likewise, we have a 45Mb pipe to Internet2, so if there's >someone at another university with a like setup we could test the >current upper bound of WAN connectivity. > > Anyone wanna propose a methodology, or shall I muddle one out >for myself? I'm thinking about a 1 or 1.5 gig single-file transfer >using anon ftp and GNU time. (I picked that filesize 'cause linux and >a couple other OS's have a 2G filesize limit in the current "stable" >tree.) Test results should probably include a description of network >hardware/capabilities, traceroutes, and ping times. It probably dosn't need to be anywhere that large of a file. A 50MB file should be overkill. You are just trying to see how fast a large file can be transfered over various links. Also, ftp will report the transfer time. You may want to try this at different times of the day. That could make a significant difference. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 21:57:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04438 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:57:48 -0400 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 VAA04435 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:57:47 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA17879; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:59:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:59:25 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006080159.VAA17879@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <393ECBEB.E81A388B@uic.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Schulien wrote: > >Besides, the existance of programs like divx really, really hurts this >argument. >Even though divx reduces the picture quality, it reduces the bandwidth >requirement >from ~10GB to ~1GB of data, which leaves them still able to make the >argument >that DeCSS enables one to turn a DVD into an internet-distributable >file. How bad does the quality have to get before it is a non-issue? Why isn't the MPAA suing sellers of camcorders? Afterall, with one of the camcorder circumvention devices, I could hold the camera in front of a TV and video tape a DVD that way. Then I just stick the tape in a tape duplicator and I can get 100s if not 1000s of copies. Oh wait, there is one difference. The quality sucks. It is not the pristine copy the MPAA is complaining about that DeCSS can produce. However, if you dvix compress the copy make by DeCSS, it will no longer be a pristine copy either. I don't see how that can have it both ways. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 22:08:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04584 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:08:10 -0400 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04581 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:08:09 -0400 Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:09:14 -0700 Received: from dfrc.nasa.gov (pchecker.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.254.128]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 35-62055U1500L100S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:09:15 -0700 Message-Id: <393F013A.A73188B4@dfrc.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 19:13:14 -0700 From: Richard Hecker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W.Schumann 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 >Ill summarize here rather the interspersing. http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg03418.html Thanks for adding data that supports my claim that he described a pathological case. I suggested the NY street driving example because it would probably have more meaning to the judge. The ratios can be identical, but the judge will remember how long a 5 mile trip can actually take ;-) In summary, the claim was disingenuous and can easily be challenged. Richard From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 22:43:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04789 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:43:37 -0400 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04786 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:43:36 -0400 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 09AB299CAE; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F8F938C0 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:45:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <393ECBEB.E81A388B@uic.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, 7 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: > Besides, the existance of programs like divx really, really hurts this > argument. > Even though divx reduces the picture quality, it reduces the bandwidth > requirement > from ~10GB to ~1GB of data, which leaves them still able to make the > argument > that DeCSS enables one to turn a DVD into an internet-distributable > file. If you don't care about reducing the picture quality, you don't need divx and DeCSS. You just play the DVD through a regular DVD player and use a video capture card. The only reason that DVD copying is any different from the kind of copying that has always been possible for anything is the ability to make perfect copies without loss of quality. If you accept loss of quality, there's no difference left. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 22:48:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04921 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:48:03 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04917 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:48:02 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zsO3-0006Jz-00; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 19:49:39 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:49:39 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000607194939.R2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <20000607183344.J31888@linuxpower.org> <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 06:54:45PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Young writes: > During argument yesterday about whether DeCSS has been actually > used to make illegal copies, and the MPAA's inability to show a > single example despite screaming to the press about the threat, > Judge Kaplan cut off debate, saying, "let me assure you that if > the plaintiffs cannot provide evidence of illegal copying as alleged > in the complaint, this matter will be brought to an immediate close." What happened to "this is not a copyright infringement case"? I thought Kaplan was cutting off defendants' counsel when _they_ suggested that there was no demonstrated illegal copying, because "this is not a copyright infringement 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 Wed Jun 7 23:01:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA05080 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:01:31 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA05077 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:01:30 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (jeffw@firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA28006 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:03:07 -0400 Message-ID: <393F0CD8.69859895@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:02:48 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15pre19-dvd i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: > > Besides, the existance of programs like divx really, really hurts this > > argument. > > Even though divx reduces the picture quality, it reduces the bandwidth > > requirement > > from ~10GB to ~1GB of data, which leaves them still able to make the > > argument > > that DeCSS enables one to turn a DVD into an internet-distributable > > file. > > If you don't care about reducing the picture quality, you don't need divx > and DeCSS. You just play the DVD through a regular DVD player and use a video > capture card. > > The only reason that DVD copying is any different from the kind of copying > that has always been possible for anything is the ability to make perfect > copies without loss of quality. If you accept loss of quality, there's no > difference left. I note in passing that re-encoding from a decoded mpeg will probably result in a poorer compression ratio -- remember how it's hard to make jpegs out of GIFs? -- in the I-frames at least and perhaps the p and b frames as well and hense (perhaps) will become unsuitable for writing to dvd (too large) or broadband transmission (too much bandwidth necessary) or in a much worse picture quality. I mention this because I think that copyright law and paracopyright law inparticular (due to the commerce clause invocation -- remember that thread?) requires us to make a test of commercial impact when determining fair use. That is if no one is going to pay for crappy divx transmission or if dvd sales are not affected, then perhaps it is a case of fair use. Now as far as cimcurmention and the DMCA, either DeCSS circumvents or not regardless of the existance of divx. -Jeff From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 23:06:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA05170 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:06:08 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA05167 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:06:07 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (jeffw@firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA28017 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:07:46 -0400 Message-ID: <393F0DEE.88BE156A@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:07:26 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15pre19-dvd i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <20000607183344.J31888@linuxpower.org> <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> <20000607194939.R2589@zork.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 Seth David Schoen wrote: > John Young writes: > > > During argument yesterday about whether DeCSS has been actually > > used to make illegal copies, and the MPAA's inability to show a > > single example despite screaming to the press about the threat, > > Judge Kaplan cut off debate, saying, "let me assure you that if > > the plaintiffs cannot provide evidence of illegal copying as alleged > > in the complaint, this matter will be brought to an immediate close." > > What happened to "this is not a copyright infringement case"? > > I thought Kaplan was cutting off defendants' counsel when _they_ > suggested that there was no demonstrated illegal copying, because > "this is not a copyright infringement case"? Yea, weird, but perhaps after reading the briefs, he is ready to define "fair circumvention" or define circumvention in the presence of intended use. -Jeff From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 23:12:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA05225 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:12:53 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA05222 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:12:52 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (jeffw@firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA28080 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:14:31 -0400 Message-ID: <393F0F83.C27736C3@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:14:11 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15pre19-dvd i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <20000607183344.J31888@linuxpower.org> <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> <20000607194939.R2589@zork.net> <393F0DEE.88BE156A@mindspring.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 Jeff Waller wrote: > > Yea, weird, but perhaps after reading the briefs, he is ready to > define "fair circumvention" or define circumvention in the presence > of intended use. > > -Jeff Forgot something, isn't one of the tests to impose injunction is irreparable harm? If no one's making copies, then there's no harm. Maybe the subject of vacating the injunction was the matter he was referring to. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 7 23:19:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA05318 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:19:28 -0400 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA05315 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:19:27 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihep.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.69.217]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA29307 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006080321.XAA29307@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:21:06 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607194939.R2589@zork.net> References: <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <20000607183344.J31888@linuxpower.org> <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.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 Let me lessen being hoisted by my own prejudice and suggest study of the transcript of yesterday's hearing (when its released) for the context of Kaplan's comment on illegal copying. He did at several points express opinions somewhat less doctrinaire, it seemed to me, than he has in the past, and in particular did not uniformly take the plaintiffs' side. Whether this was induced by presence of the press or his mind is slowly opening to facts being presented to him -- by the parties or by his own research -- or by Garbus's skillful argument, who knows. The plaintiffs' stonewalling on discovery and depositions may have conveyed a message of insecurity about their case, as Garbus has argued, and if that message is starting to have an effect on the judge's former certainty about potential harm to the plaintiffs by DeCSS, then maybe the lack of evidence that DeCSS is actually the devil asserted by MPAA is weighing on Kaplan. I'll venture another recollection of the hearing (subject to being hammered by the transcript, or Wendy, who was listening and understanding much better than me) is that Judge Kaplan said that now after all these months of DeCSS being available despite the injunction, and that MPAA cannot produce evidence of DeCSS being used for the purpose MPAA complains about, then that is telling the Court another message than that advocated by MPAA. Garbus noted that the spread of DeCSS was given a tremendous boost by MPAA's widely reported attack on the initial CA defendants. Yet even now no evidence can be produced that it has caused actual harm. (Kaplan did note that argument for future harm could not be ruled out, but that is less compelling than evidence of actual harm.) Is MPAA holding such evidence for trial where it will be most effective? That's what I would do -- if I had any, or was raindancing to manufacture it. What would be a nice touch is for the judge to demand the evidence before trial, or stipulate that if not reveal during discovery, it cannot be introduced during trial. Is that a valid procedure, dear lawyers? At 07:49 PM 6/7/00 -0700, Seth wrote: >John Young writes: > >> During argument yesterday about whether DeCSS has been actually >> used to make illegal copies, and the MPAA's inability to show a >> single example despite screaming to the press about the threat, >> Judge Kaplan cut off debate, saying, "let me assure you that if >> the plaintiffs cannot provide evidence of illegal copying as alleged >> in the complaint, this matter will be brought to an immediate close." > >What happened to "this is not a copyright infringement case"? > >I thought Kaplan was cutting off defendants' counsel when _they_ >suggested that there was no demonstrated illegal copying, because >"this is not a copyright infringement 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 Thu Jun 8 00:16:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA05623 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:16:07 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA05620 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:16:05 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12ztlG-0006dz-00; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 21:17:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:17:42 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines Message-ID: <20000607211742.V2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Plaintiffs claim defendants violate the DMCA while they do the same thing, a hundred fold. Disney never sought to stop Time Warner or Northern Light or its own search engine from going to DeCSS. In seconds I can go, I understand, from Northern Light or Disney to DeCSS. It is either one or several clicks. I do not know which plaintiff has or controls other search engines. We are entitled to discovery on these issues. For plaintiffs to continue to link to DeCSS and then try and stop defendants from doing so, is using unclean hands. http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-dis.htm I don't think Mr. Garbus should be giving the MPAA ideas along these lines. Would we want to see Time Warner trying to get subsidiaries to censor the results of searches for "DeCSS"? -- 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 Jun 8 01:03:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA05960 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:03:01 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA05957 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:03:00 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA29616 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:04:31 -0500 Message-ID: <393F2977.995F6CEF@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:04:55 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <20000606185341.1656.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com>; <0FVS001KONS49X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> <393E960A.BA4FDC85@mninter.net> <20000607131341.A1671@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 Just an update on my DVD copying experiments: Computer L: AMD K-6 300, 128MB RAM, IDE-33 HD, Netgear FA-310 10/100 Ethernet, Creative Labs 2x DVD drive, Windows 98 with dynamic Virtual memory and in "Network Server" mode (otherwise unoptimized). Computer K: AMD Athlon 600, 128MB RAM, IDE-66 HD, Netgear FA-310 10/100 Ethernet, Toshiba 2x DVD drive, Windows 98 with dynamic Virtual memory and in "Network Server" mode (otherwise unoptimized). At this point, I am again unsure what I was attempting to prove or disprove, however. Even with a fully optimized assembly language networking OS designed to send/recieve large multimedia files it will still take no less time than some rate less than the theoretical maximum of the network medium. A 100 Mbps, full-duplexed, network at top speed takes x time to transmit 7GB, and it is roughly an order of magnitude greater than 7 minutes. The internet is necessarily slower than that theoretical top speed. However, what difference does it make if you wait 7, 70, or 700 minutes for your movie? You have still accomplished the same result, and that result may be lawful or may be unlawful. The point is that the MPAA should not be granted the power to preclude a priori all copying, regardless that some "piracy" may result. They need to bring copyright violators to court and accuse *them, not accuse the entire American public of piracy today and subject us to punishment in perpituity. If we need to prove the declaration contains misleading facts or statements, that is easily done, but let's not get stuck up on such a tiny battle in the war. Sorry, I'll try to pipe down now... Thanks. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 03:02:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA06614 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:02:59 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA06611 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:02:58 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 12zwMm-0004nc-00; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:04:36 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 12zwMm-0007VA-00; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:04:36 +0200 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:04:36 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines Message-ID: <20000608090436.B28300@inka.de> References: <20000607211742.V2589@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000607211742.V2589@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:17:42PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:17:42PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > I don't think Mr. Garbus should be giving the MPAA ideas along > these lines. Would we want to see Time Warner trying to get > subsidiaries to censor the results of searches for "DeCSS"? I don't think we should censor ourselves in this way. Anything we say may give the MPAA ideas, IMHO the point of an open forum like this is that its strengths outweigh such weaknesses. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 03:09:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA06769 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:09:30 -0400 Received: from ghio (cx576138-a.pv1.ca.home.com [24.9.136.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA06762 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:08:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:08:47 -0400 Message-Id: <200006080708.DAA06762@eon.law.harvard.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Matthew Ghio Subject: 100mbit ethernet (Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann) References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ken Arromdee wrote: > Yeah. If a dorm has a 100mbps connection that only works in the dorm, he > has no reason to copy it at all. The only reason to copy it is to watch it > (he wouldn't want to copy it to store it permanently, since the drive space > would cost more than buying another DVD); if he's in the same dorm, he can > just watch it by walking over and asking to borrow it. 100mbit ethernet is limited to about 200 meters under normal circumstances. (For point-to-point non-shared connections, the cables can be somewhat longer.) In any event, it's safe to say that anyone copying files at 100mbit/sec are within walking distance of each other. I'd also point out that 100mbit/sec is near the limit of most hard disks. Even if your network could transfer the DVD in 7 minutes, you couldn't actually save it to disk that fast unless you had a very recent model. The 16GB drive that I'm using now can not sustain that data rate, and it was manufactured only about a year ago. I'm well aware that there are other issues involved; I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of Schumann's statement. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 03:23:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA06967 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:23:28 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA06964 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:23:26 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 12zwgb-0007Hg-00; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:25:05 -0700 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:25:05 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines Message-ID: <20000608002505.B2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000607211742.V2589@zork.net> <20000608090436.B28300@inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000608090436.B28300@inka.de>; from mail@risctaker.inka.de on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 09:04:36AM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner writes: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:17:42PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > I don't think Mr. Garbus should be giving the MPAA ideas along > > these lines. Would we want to see Time Warner trying to get > > subsidiaries to censor the results of searches for "DeCSS"? > > I don't think we should censor ourselves in this way. Anything we say may > give the MPAA ideas, IMHO the point of an open forum like this is that its > strengths outweigh such weaknesses. But Garbus filed papers with the court saying that providing links to DeCSS should work to the legal disadvantage of plaintiffs. So this means that, if plaintiffs believe the defense attorney, they will have an incentive to prevent search engines from returning accurate results to a search for "DeCSS". I think that would be a very undesirable outcome. -- 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 Jun 8 03:43:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA07214 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:43:28 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA07211 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:43:27 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA05967 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 02:44:58 -0500 Message-ID: <393F4EDA.D9D438CC@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 02:44:26 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines References: <20000607211742.V2589@zork.net> <20000608090436.B28300@inka.de> <20000608002505.B2589@zork.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 > But Garbus filed papers with the court saying that providing links to > DeCSS should work to the legal disadvantage of plaintiffs. So this > means that, if plaintiffs believe the defense attorney, they will have > an incentive to prevent search engines from returning accurate results > to a search for "DeCSS". I think that would be a very undesirable > outcome. This sort of change has to flow down quite a convoluted chain of command and then be turned into code. The order was probably passed down last week. Secondly, the number of search engines that do not provide "fixed" results are already numbered (in the form of "preferred sponsors"), I'm sure these organizations have no compunctions "fixing" them further to their economic advantage. Unfortunately I know of no legal basis for preventing a site responding selectively to a search. Can anyone suggest one? So, I would suggest that we presume they've already made the modifications and move on. We have no means of preventing them from making them. We have no recourse once they have been made. Make a public stink, boycott them, and use Google. The DMCA is the issue at hand, not corporate censorship. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 04:00:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA07403 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 04:00:14 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA07400 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 04:00:12 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 12zxGB-0007RQ-00; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:01:51 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 12zxGB-0007nJ-00; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:01:51 +0200 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:01:51 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines Message-ID: <20000608100151.C28300@inka.de> References: <20000607211742.V2589@zork.net> <20000608090436.B28300@inka.de> <20000608002505.B2589@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000608002505.B2589@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 12:25:05AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 12:25:05AM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Sham Gardner writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:17:42PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > I don't think Mr. Garbus should be giving the MPAA ideas along > > > these lines. Would we want to see Time Warner trying to get > > > subsidiaries to censor the results of searches for "DeCSS"? > > > > I don't think we should censor ourselves in this way. Anything we say may > > give the MPAA ideas, IMHO the point of an open forum like this is that its > > strengths outweigh such weaknesses. > > But Garbus filed papers with the court saying that providing links to > DeCSS should work to the legal disadvantage of plaintiffs. So this > means that, if plaintiffs believe the defense attorney, they will have > an incentive to prevent search engines from returning accurate results > to a search for "DeCSS". I think that would be a very undesirable > outcome. And if they did that, they would attract more negative publicity. I don't believe we should refrain from pointing out inconsistencies and other weaknesses in the plaintiffs' case simply because they may then seek to eliminate those weaknesses, whatever repressive means they may use to accomplish that. For all we know they may intend to clamp down on search engines once they have won this case, in which case not mentioning it now wouldn't make much difference. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 04:03:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA07553 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 04:03:09 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA07550 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 04:03:07 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 12zxIz-0007eP-00; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:04:45 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 12zxJ0-0007pe-00; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:04:46 +0200 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:04:46 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines Message-ID: <20000608100446.D28300@inka.de> References: <20000607211742.V2589@zork.net> <20000608090436.B28300@inka.de> <20000608002505.B2589@zork.net> <393F4EDA.D9D438CC@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <393F4EDA.D9D438CC@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 02:44:26AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 02:44:26AM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > > But Garbus filed papers with the court saying that providing links to > > DeCSS should work to the legal disadvantage of plaintiffs. So this > > means that, if plaintiffs believe the defense attorney, they will have > > an incentive to prevent search engines from returning accurate results > > to a search for "DeCSS". I think that would be a very undesirable > > outcome. > So, I would suggest that we presume they've already made the > modifications and move on. We have no means of preventing them from > making them. We have no recourse once they have been made. Make a public > stink, boycott them, and use Google. > > The DMCA is the issue at hand, not corporate censorship. Also any such change will ultimately be futile. "DeCSS" can be mirrored under another name. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 04:17:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA07712 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 04:17:07 -0400 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 EAA07709 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 04:17:02 -0400 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 BAA00269 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:16:23 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA01446; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:15:40 -0700 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] Schumann n.17 Date: 8 Jun 2000 01:14:35 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 26 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8hnklb$1d5$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <8hko5a$ls$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article , Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > I think the logic goes something like this: > > RE is difficult, building cracking tools *after* a system has been REd > is trivial. So, as soon as the reverse engineering bit is done, the > tools (DeCSS) built on that effort are not of interest: CSS and hence > DeCSS itself are not interesting from the point of view of cryptography > because they are so trivial, so study of cryptography/security/whatever > cannot be a valid reason to distribute the tool (DeCSS). > Ahh, I see. Thanks. As it turns out, this line of reasoning misunderstands the nature of academic research. Not all hard problems are interesting. Not all easy problems are boring. Reverse-engineering is time-consuming but, from a research perspective, thoroughly uninteresting -- there's nothing novel there. On the other hand, analysis of the algorithm can be of significant interest to the research community, even (perhaps especially) when one is successful in cryptanalyzing the algorithm without too much effort. Reverse engineer is often the enabler that allows academics to do interesting research, even if the reverse engineering is not in itself of interest. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 12:37:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA13152 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:37:55 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA13149 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:37:53 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:39:57 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C19@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:39:55 -0700 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 If you're copying from one section to another on the same drive, what he said about speed applies. But when copying from one hard drive to a different hard drive different rules apply. The best speed would (I think) come from fast/wide SCSI with bus-mastering capability ... I -think- that "bus mastering" is the feature that lets the CPU stay out of the equation and lets the two drives talk directly to each other. (Someone w/ a bit more knowledge at this level could probably straighten me out here...) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Seth David Schoen [mailto:schoen@loyalty.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:58 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann > > > sam tobin-hochstadt writes: > > > For example, hard disk speed. I recently had the privilege > of copying > > about 3GB of data between hd partition.s It took about 45 > minutes. And > > ext2 is considered a fast filesystem. > > Mmmm, if you're copying trees from a filesystem, it is slower than > just copying a single huge file. However fast ext2 is, there is still > a need to seek to and update metadata throughout the copy. > > And the result of trying to copy a huge file locally is still slower > than trying to copy to or from the network. When you copy within a > hard drive, the system will read to fill a buffer at the source, then > seek to the destination, then write, then seek back to the source... > > (Buffers can be made larger and larger so that there is _less_ > seeking, but you can't eliminate it entirely unless you can read the > whole file into RAM.) > > On the other hand, with a copy to or from the network, it may be > possible to read or write an entire file sequentially, with no > seeking. (With some filesystems, metadata updates might remain cached > in RAM for the entire duration of the copy operation.) If both sides > are doing that, you could imagine a situation where a network copy > (over a LAN?) is _faster_ than a local disk copy. Seek latencies can > be _huge_! > > -- > 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 Jun 8 12:55:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA13506 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:55:20 -0400 Received: from dial87.roadrunner.com (dial87.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.87] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA13503 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:55:17 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial87.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00806 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:57:32 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:57:31 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608105730.A598@localhost> References: <393ECBEB.E81A388B@uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from arromdee@rahul.net on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 07:45:13PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 07:45:13PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: > > Besides, the existance of programs like divx really, really hurts this > > argument. > > Even though divx reduces the picture quality, it reduces the bandwidth > > requirement > > from ~10GB to ~1GB of data, which leaves them still able to make the > > argument > > that DeCSS enables one to turn a DVD into an internet-distributable > > file. > > If you don't care about reducing the picture quality, you don't need divx > and DeCSS. You just play the DVD through a regular DVD player and use a video > capture card. > > The only reason that DVD copying is any different from the kind of copying > that has always been possible for anything is the ability to make perfect > copies without loss of quality. If you accept loss of quality, there's no > difference left. At least when Valenti was before Congress, the MPAA's point was slightly different than this: that -digital- copying has very little (I think he said "none") generational loss. That's subtley different from the above point. If you grab the data from the display device with whatever quality is available to the viewer, that loss of quality only happens _once_. All the subsequent generations need have no more loss than copying the digital data directly (i.e. without a re-digitization step). Perhaps someone can explain to me what the point of "water-marking is? It isn't like there would be any question about who owns the copyright to a work in most circumstances, so is the only point to bust people's chops after the fact? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 12:56:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA13611 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:56:48 -0400 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 MAA13608 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:56:46 -0400 Received: from travel-net.com (trj52.travel-net.com [207.176.160.52]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08517 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:57:46 -0400 Message-ID: <393FD071.8C6C968@travel-net.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:57:21 -0400 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C19@mail2.onetouch.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 Ummmmmmmmm, I've lurked on this thread since I figure most on the list know how I feel about going down this road. But just for old-tymes sake. I think its a mistake for *US* to deal with this whole issue. Its a no-win situation. Even if we prove something is not possible today, its probably possible tomorrow. Our point should *always* be that it's about use. DeCSS sez nothing about the use someome makes of the ones and zeroes that come out of the box. I own a car that is capable of going (wellll, I wont say how fast Ive driven it but its waaaaaaaaaay above posted speed limits). Is my possession of this device illegal? of course not. The guy who drives it at 151 mph is performing an illegal act and when he gets caught he gets fined/suspended/glared at by the judge. when the cop passes me, he/she just smiles and doesnt arrest me. my use of the device is permissible so having one in my driveway is cool. Having DeCSS should be just as cool ,even if it can or may one day permit someone to *speed*. back to lurking on this particular thread. Richard Hartman wrote: > > If you're copying from one section to another on the same > drive, what he said about speed applies. But when copying from > one hard drive to a different hard drive different rules apply. > > The best speed would (I think) come from fast/wide SCSI with > bus-mastering capability ... I -think- that "bus mastering" > is the feature that lets the CPU stay out of the equation and > lets the two drives talk directly to each other. (Someone > w/ a bit more knowledge at this level could probably straighten > me out here...) > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Seth David Schoen [mailto:schoen@loyalty.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:58 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann > > > > > > sam tobin-hochstadt writes: > > > > > For example, hard disk speed. I recently had the privilege > > of copying > > > about 3GB of data between hd partition.s It took about 45 > > minutes. And > > > ext2 is considered a fast filesystem. > > > > Mmmm, if you're copying trees from a filesystem, it is slower than > > just copying a single huge file. However fast ext2 is, there is still > > a need to seek to and update metadata throughout the copy. > > > > And the result of trying to copy a huge file locally is still slower > > than trying to copy to or from the network. When you copy within a > > hard drive, the system will read to fill a buffer at the source, then > > seek to the destination, then write, then seek back to the source... > > > > (Buffers can be made larger and larger so that there is _less_ > > seeking, but you can't eliminate it entirely unless you can read the > > whole file into RAM.) > > > > On the other hand, with a copy to or from the network, it may be > > possible to read or write an entire file sequentially, with no > > seeking. (With some filesystems, metadata updates might remain cached > > in RAM for the entire duration of the copy operation.) If both sides > > are doing that, you could imagine a situation where a network copy > > (over a LAN?) is _faster_ than a local disk copy. Seek latencies can > > be _huge_! > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:01:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA13744 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:01:58 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13741 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:01:57 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26690 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:03:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22838 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:03:35 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:03:34 -0500 (CDT) From: sam tobin-hochstadt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607164806.F31888@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, 7 Jun 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > then you say, "and this guy expects us to believe that 100Mbps access > > only costs $30? Hell, it costs $50,000 per month for less than half that! > > Plaintiffs' sudden focus on college dorms, where there may be > > high-bandwidth networks inside the campus, is simply trying to distract > > us from the fact that the spectre of internet movie piracy is physically > > impossible." > > Careful. He didn't exactly say that $30 gets you 100Mbps access. What he > said was that the *adapter* can run well below $30, which is absolutely > true. Assuming that this is the only cost the end-user has, then $30 does > the job rather nicely. > > It's been a while for me, so answer this.. how much is the average college > student, living in a dorm, paying for that 100Mbps local access - so long > as they already have the ethernet card? > Well, at the University of Chicago, it costs about $5k per year, plus you have to take about $1500 in meal plan, in order to get 10Mb. sam th From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:07:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA13851 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:07:21 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13848 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:07:20 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12608 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:09:00 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393FC600.E23005E3@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 11:12:48 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines 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 don't think we should censor ourselves in this way. > Anything we say may give the MPAA ideas, IMHO > the point of an open forum like this is that its strengths > outweigh such weaknesses. I absolutely agree. Either the openlaw forum works or it doesn't. If someone thinks of a flaw in the defense, and self-censors to keep the flaw quiet, this increases the danger that plantiffs will raise the issue at trial and the defense will be unprepared, or even worse, will have backed themselves into a corner with another statement. I mentioned that divx could be used after DeCSS to create an internet distributable file, and several people replied that the image quality would be extremely compromised, and that someone could obtain a copy of similar quality just by aiming a camcorder at a screen, or using a screen capture card. That's what I mean. - John From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:09:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA13979 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:09:17 -0400 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 NAA13976 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:09:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA03482 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:10:55 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:10:54 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <393FD071.8C6C968@travel-net.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 agree with this. It's good to poke holes in the Seven Minute Miracle, but we have to remember how far it gets us: about as far as it got Matt Pavlovich. To return to lingo used in the early days of this list, we have to get them out of the sandbox. The best response we can make, strictly technically, to their Miracle arguments is that they drastically oversimplify a complex situation, and the best ammo we can generate in support of that statement is to accumulate statements to the contrary - which, lo and behold, we've been doing. Always, though, we must couple such a response with the fact that the technical convenience of potential piracy is irrelevant to this case, and drag the terms of the argument back to: convenience in trading DVD info, mp3 info, or any other type of info does not warrant restriction of inalienable rights (and all the things that those rights support); potential for piracy can not be the same thing as piracy itself. sparky On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Dan Steinberg wrote: > Ummmmmmmmm, I've lurked on this thread since I figure most on the list > know how I feel about going down this road. But just for old-tymes > sake. > I think its a mistake for *US* to deal with this whole issue. Its a > no-win situation. Even if we prove something is not possible today, > its probably possible tomorrow. > Our point should *always* be that it's about use. DeCSS sez nothing > about the use someome makes of the ones and zeroes that come out of > the box. > I own a car that is capable of going (wellll, I wont say how fast Ive > driven it but its waaaaaaaaaay above posted speed limits). Is my > possession of this device illegal? of course not. The guy who drives > it at 151 mph is performing an illegal act and when he gets caught he > gets fined/suspended/glared at by the judge. when the cop passes me, > he/she just smiles and doesnt arrest me. my use of the device is > permissible so having one in my driveway is cool. > Having DeCSS should be just as cool ,even if it can or may one day > permit someone to *speed*. > > back to lurking on this particular thread. > > > Richard Hartman wrote: > > > > If you're copying from one section to another on the same > > drive, what he said about speed applies. But when copying from > > one hard drive to a different hard drive different rules apply. > > > > The best speed would (I think) come from fast/wide SCSI with > > bus-mastering capability ... I -think- that "bus mastering" > > is the feature that lets the CPU stay out of the equation and > > lets the two drives talk directly to each other. (Someone > > w/ a bit more knowledge at this level could probably straighten > > me out here...) > > > > -- > > -Richard M. Hartman > > hartman@onetouch.com > > > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Seth David Schoen [mailto:schoen@loyalty.org] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:58 AM > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann > > > > > > > > > sam tobin-hochstadt writes: > > > > > > > For example, hard disk speed. I recently had the privilege > > > of copying > > > > about 3GB of data between hd partition.s It took about 45 > > > minutes. And > > > > ext2 is considered a fast filesystem. > > > > > > Mmmm, if you're copying trees from a filesystem, it is slower than > > > just copying a single huge file. However fast ext2 is, there is still > > > a need to seek to and update metadata throughout the copy. > > > > > > And the result of trying to copy a huge file locally is still slower > > > than trying to copy to or from the network. When you copy within a > > > hard drive, the system will read to fill a buffer at the source, then > > > seek to the destination, then write, then seek back to the source... > > > > > > (Buffers can be made larger and larger so that there is _less_ > > > seeking, but you can't eliminate it entirely unless you can read the > > > whole file into RAM.) > > > > > > On the other hand, with a copy to or from the network, it may be > > > possible to read or write an entire file sequentially, with no > > > seeking. (With some filesystems, metadata updates might remain cached > > > in RAM for the entire duration of the copy operation.) If both sides > > > are doing that, you could imagine a situation where a network copy > > > (over a LAN?) is _faster_ than a local disk copy. Seek latencies can > > > be _huge_! > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > -- > Dan Steinberg > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 > Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 > J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:09:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA13987 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:09:23 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13984 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:09:22 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:11:26 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1A@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Don't you obtain "authority" to access DVDs whe n you buy a player? Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:11:26 -0700 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 The "transfer of authorization" issue was a big thread a while back, but I think that this point has been lost in the meantime. Thanks for bringing it back up. IIRC, the upshot of the previous thread was that transfer of authority must occur at first sale. The only other option was that authority was conveyed w/ the purchase of a licensed DVD player, and that would have lead to an illegal tying. Could somebody who participated in that thread check me on my memory? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: John Schulien [mailto:jms@uic.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 12:28 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Don't you obtain "authority" to access > DVDs when > you buy a player? > > > From the text of the DMCA: > > (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means > ... to decrypt an encrypted work ... > without the authority of the copyright owner; ... > > If I purchase a hardware DVD player, or a computer > DVD drive bundled with DVD playing software, > I presumably obtain authorization at that time to use > that DVD player to decrypt encrypted DVDs using the > built-in DeCSS implementation. I assume that both > sides agree on that point. No one is claiming that > using vendor-supplied DVD software to play DVDs > is illegal. That's the whole point of a DVD player. > > Could one argue that authorization to decrypt DVDs was > granted at the time that the hardware was purchased, > and that people using DeCSS are simply exercising > this previously granted authorization using alternate > means? After all, DeCSS is useless without a DVD > drive to read the encrypted data stream from, so > presumably each and every user of DeCSS has > already obtained authorization to execute the DeCSS > algorithm against commercial DVDs at the time they > purchased the DVD hardware that implements the > DeCSS algorithm. > > One could argue that each and every user of DeCSS > has already obtained authority to execute the DeCSS > algorithm against commercial DVDs by virtue of their > purchase of a licensed player product. > > This would contrast with a program designed, for > instance, to descramble a satellite broadcast, where > the user had not obtained any authorization. > > Also, would the requirement that only the > vendor-supplied software be used with the > vendor-supplied hardware constitute an illegal tying? > > I don't know if these issues have been discussed. > I'm trying to catch up on the old messages, but > there's a lot of them. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:14:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14147 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:14:45 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14144 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:14:44 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:16:49 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1B@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:16:47 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Seppanen [mailto:eds@reric.net] ... > A. His focus on bandwidth requirements essentially admit that movie > piracy (both serving and downloading movies) is impossible > for 99% of the > internet. This is an important point and we should take the > opportunity > to insure the judge got it. > Let's not get sidetracked. The question is not whether piracy is practical or not -- because if it is not now, it will be in the not-to-distant future. The issue is whether the spectre of piracy is enough to justify measures that prevent otherwise legal activities (i.e. "fair use"). When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's easy to forget that you came there to drain the swamp... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:21:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14211 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:21:40 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14208 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:21:39 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14693 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:23:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393FC95C.7EAA067B@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 11:27:08 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Watermarking 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 writes: > Perhaps someone can explain to me what the point of "water-marking is? > It isn't like there would be any question about who owns the copyright > to a work in most circumstances, so is the only point to bust people's > chops after the fact? The way I understand it, watermarking hides the serial number of the player, and, if the medium contains a unique serial number (which DVDs don't) the serial number of the medium, in the video image. You can't see it, because it's a subtle manipulation of the image, but if you were to make a recording of the video signal, even on an analog videocassette, it is possible to extract that watermark signal from the videocassette and turn it back into the serial number of the player and/or the medium. The watermark signals are designed to survive multiple analog copy generations. This allows one to prove that a specific videocassette originated from a DVD player with serial number X. This information can then be used to try and locate that DVD deck. Perhaps the owner of the deck sent in his registration card, or used a credit card when they purchased the DVD player, and the serial number was recorded. At the least, they could probably figure out what store sold the deck. That's what watermarking is for, as I understand it. - John From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:22:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14322 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:22:42 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14318 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:22:41 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:24:45 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1C@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:24:43 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Hudson [mailto:dthudson@freewwweb.com] ... > Eventually, however... > > The MPAA will be able to find an example of copying, though > they may have > difficulty finding one that requires use of DeCSS. > The "DivX" > thing seems contrived-look at the page of sampe trailers; > what "hacker" > would choose that cross section of movies? In > any case, even > if they find such an example, it is simple to show DeCSS is > unnecessary to > copy a movie in the lossy formats available for internet transfer. If they are hunting for an instance of copying using DeCSS, it may behoove us to find an instance that did -not- require DeCSS so that we may show that DeCSS is actually irrelevant re. the piracy issue. > As for the Schumann declaration, I am most interested in his > statement that > DeCSS violates the reproduction right because it makes a copy of the > decrypted VOB file on the user's hard drive. I am forced to > wonder how the > DVD license grant (for home use only) could be construed not > to include his, > when it is a necessary step to view the movie. > > If a permanent copy is left on the hard drive (rather than a > transitory > copy) does this violate the reproduction right of the > copyright holder? Or > is it like Betamax time-shifting and RIO case space-shifting? > Doesn't it > depend on the scope of the home license grant? It seems his > entire claim is > based on their position that you need an entirely different license to > access the work. > I believe that earlier precedents make media shifting "fair use", in particular if you own a record or CD you can copy it onto cassette tape so that you can listen to the music you purchased in your car. If anybody can find any actual case law on media shifting as fair use, that would probably be a good thing to have in our arsenal. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:26:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14377 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:26:44 -0400 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 NAA14374 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:26:43 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA28704 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:28:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:28:21 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608122821.A28631@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1B@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1B@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:16:47AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:16:47AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric Seppanen [mailto:eds@reric.net] > ... > > A. His focus on bandwidth requirements essentially admit that movie > > piracy (both serving and downloading movies) is impossible > > for 99% of the > > internet. This is an important point and we should take the > > opportunity > > to insure the judge got it. > > > > Let's not get sidetracked. The question is not whether piracy > is practical or not -- because if it is not now, it will be in > the not-to-distant future. The issue is whether the spectre of > piracy is enough to justify measures that prevent otherwise > legal activities (i.e. "fair use"). > > When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's easy to forget > that you came there to drain the swamp... Look, I understand your concern. But I respectfully disagree. The plaintiffs have already chosen to make this an issue, using vastly overblown claims. It's true their claims have a tiny kernel of truth. But the overblown claims are out there, and there's two choices for the defense: 1. Let the overblown claims (7 minute internet movie downloads) stand, or 2. Show that the claims are unrealistic. I repeat, I don't think this is a good core defense argument. It's damage control, just sticking fingers in the dike long enough for the _real_ arguments to win the case. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:26:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14386 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:26:57 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14383 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:26:56 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15448 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:28:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393FCA98.FDD5AEE2@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 11:32:24 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 the MPAA and RIAA hold occasional press conferences where they show steamrollers destroying thousands of bootleg videocassettes and DVDs? If one could produce a videotape or press release from such a media event that occurred before DeCSS was released, showing pirate DVDs being destroyed, that should make the point nicely. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:31:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14489 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:31:01 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14486 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:30:59 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:33:01 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1D@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:33:00 -0700 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 Actually that "illegal to own a car that can go >65mph" thing might be another good argument to have on hand. There are lots of tools that are -capable- of being used illegally ... but it is the -act- that is prosecutable, and the tool is not restricted. (notable exception: owning lock pics is illegal in many places unless you are a locksmith) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:dstein@travel-net.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 9:57 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann > > > Ummmmmmmmm, I've lurked on this thread since I figure most on the list > know how I feel about going down this road. But just for old-tymes > sake. > I think its a mistake for *US* to deal with this whole issue. Its a > no-win situation. Even if we prove something is not possible today, > its probably possible tomorrow. > Our point should *always* be that it's about use. DeCSS sez nothing > about the use someome makes of the ones and zeroes that come out of > the box. > I own a car that is capable of going (wellll, I wont say how fast Ive > driven it but its waaaaaaaaaay above posted speed limits). Is my > possession of this device illegal? of course not. The guy who drives > it at 151 mph is performing an illegal act and when he gets caught he > gets fined/suspended/glared at by the judge. when the cop passes me, > he/she just smiles and doesnt arrest me. my use of the device is > permissible so having one in my driveway is cool. > Having DeCSS should be just as cool ,even if it can or may one day > permit someone to *speed*. > > back to lurking on this particular thread. > > > Richard Hartman wrote: > > > > If you're copying from one section to another on the same > > drive, what he said about speed applies. But when copying from > > one hard drive to a different hard drive different rules apply. > > > > The best speed would (I think) come from fast/wide SCSI with > > bus-mastering capability ... I -think- that "bus mastering" > > is the feature that lets the CPU stay out of the equation and > > lets the two drives talk directly to each other. (Someone > > w/ a bit more knowledge at this level could probably straighten > > me out here...) > > > > -- > > -Richard M. Hartman > > hartman@onetouch.com > > > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Seth David Schoen [mailto:schoen@loyalty.org] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:58 AM > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann > > > > > > > > > sam tobin-hochstadt writes: > > > > > > > For example, hard disk speed. I recently had the privilege > > > of copying > > > > about 3GB of data between hd partition.s It took about 45 > > > minutes. And > > > > ext2 is considered a fast filesystem. > > > > > > Mmmm, if you're copying trees from a filesystem, it is slower than > > > just copying a single huge file. However fast ext2 is, > there is still > > > a need to seek to and update metadata throughout the copy. > > > > > > And the result of trying to copy a huge file locally is > still slower > > > than trying to copy to or from the network. When you > copy within a > > > hard drive, the system will read to fill a buffer at the > source, then > > > seek to the destination, then write, then seek back to > the source... > > > > > > (Buffers can be made larger and larger so that there is _less_ > > > seeking, but you can't eliminate it entirely unless you > can read the > > > whole file into RAM.) > > > > > > On the other hand, with a copy to or from the network, it may be > > > possible to read or write an entire file sequentially, with no > > > seeking. (With some filesystems, metadata updates might > remain cached > > > in RAM for the entire duration of the copy operation.) > If both sides > > > are doing that, you could imagine a situation where a network copy > > > (over a LAN?) is _faster_ than a local disk copy. Seek > latencies can > > > be _huge_! > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > -- > Dan Steinberg > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 > Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 > J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:31:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14497 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:31:23 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14494 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:31:22 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16208 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:33:02 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393FCBA3.BD1C15A8@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 11:36:51 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 If we are absolutely sure that what he is saying is impossible, then perhaps the defense should ask that Mr. Shumann demonstrate a seven minute download of a full DVD image from the internet in court, using his choice of hardware and commercial ISP. (i.e. resources available to the general public.) I think that the results would be humiliating for Mr. Schumann. So, is it really impossible? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:34:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14599 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:34:08 -0400 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14596 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:34:07 -0400 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00636 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:35:46 -0700 Received: from [17.221.92.145] (bh2145.apple.com [17.221.92.145]) by scv1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA02233 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200006081735.KAA02233@scv1.apple.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:35:44 -0700 x-sender: awells@mail.apple.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: awells 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 >Perhaps someone can explain to me what the point of "water-marking is? >It isn't like there would be any question about who owns the copyright >to a work in most circumstances, so is the only point to bust people's >chops after the fact? You're right that the owner of the copyright isn't usually in question, so I had assumed that the point of watermarking was to be able to tell who made the first copy. For instance, the MPAA might like something like this to be the case: ----- You buy a DVD sometime in the future, after the MPAA have won all their court cases. You put it in your future DVD player, which connects to the MPAA's web site. "Thanks for buying a copy of 'Matrix 2: Electric Boogaloo'!", the screen says. "To activate your DVD, enter the number next to the barcode on the disc now." You do so, and enjoy the movie. Later, since you're an MPAA-flouting copyright pirate, you copy the movie to your computer's hard drive, creating an unencrypted copy using a DeCSS-like tool. You upload it to an internet site and people all over the world download it. One of the MPAA's web-spiders does too. They examine the watermark contained in the digital file, which contains the barcode number of the disc that you bought. Now they can attempt to prosecute *you* directly for making (or allowing to be made) an unencrypted copy. ----- At least, that's my understanding of how watermarks work (or at least, how the MPAA would like them to work). Of course, there will be de-watermarking tools developed, but perhaps these will be attacked as well by future MPAA suits. adam -- The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of my employer. Heck, they may not even be my own. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:35:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14705 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:35:28 -0400 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14702 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:35:27 -0400 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 36CB199CE4; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:37:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BD8938C0 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:37:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:37:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000608105730.A598@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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > At least when Valenti was before Congress, the MPAA's point was slightly > different than this: that -digital- copying has very little (I think he > said "none") generational loss. That's subtley different from the above > point. If you grab the data from the display device with whatever quality > is available to the viewer, that loss of quality only happens _once_. All > the subsequent generations need have no more loss than copying the digital > data directly (i.e. without a re-digitization step). That still doesn't require DeCSS--you can use a video capture card or just use a camcorder as someone else suggested. Once you've captured it you can still copy it without another loss of quality. The only unique part about DeCSS here is that the original copy has no loss of quality, not the successive copies. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:35:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14715 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:35:47 -0400 Received: from dial205.roadrunner.com (sf-du205.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.205]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14712 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:35:44 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial205.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01406 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:38:04 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:38:03 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608113803.B598@localhost> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1C@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1C@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:24:43AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:24:43AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > If they are hunting for an instance of copying using DeCSS, it may > behoove us to find an instance that did -not- require DeCSS so that > we may show that DeCSS is actually irrelevant re. the piracy issue. Discusses illegal duplication of disks in Hong Kong, and cites news articles reporting illicit pressing plants getting busted. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 13:47:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14834 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:47:05 -0400 Received: from dial205.roadrunner.com (sf-du205.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.205]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14831 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:47:03 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial205.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01422 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:49:23 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:49:22 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Watermarking Message-ID: <20000608114922.A1412@localhost> References: <393FC95C.7EAA067B@uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <393FC95C.7EAA067B@uic.edu>; from jms@uic.edu on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 11:27:08AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 11:27:08AM -0500, John Schulien wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > Perhaps someone can explain to me what the point of "water-marking is? > > > It isn't like there would be any question about who owns the copyright > > > to a work in most circumstances, so is the only point to bust people's > > > chops after the fact? > > The way I understand it, watermarking hides the serial > number of the player, and, if the medium contains a unique serial > number (which DVDs don't) the serial number of the medium, in > the video image. You can't see it, because it's a subtle manipulation > of the image, but if you were to make a recording of the video signal, > even on an analog videocassette, it is possible to extract that > watermark > signal from the videocassette and turn it back into the serial number of > the > player and/or the medium. The watermark signals are designed to survive > > multiple analog copy generations. > > This allows one to prove that a specific videocassette originated from > a DVD player with serial number X. This information can then be used > to try and locate that DVD deck. Perhaps the owner of the deck sent in > his registration card, or used a credit card when they purchased the > DVD player, and the serial number was recorded. At the least, they > could probably figure out what store sold the deck. > > That's what watermarking is for, as I understand it. [ Privacy problems anyone? The potential is there ... ] The reason I asked is that it might be useful to show that CSS/EBX-like systems are not the only game in town. CSS isn't the only way to fry an egg. The, "But the studio _need_ CSS to say in business" carries less weight in any "balancing" that might be done against the First Amendment if we show the existence of alternatives. This rankles me, I'm not interested in doing the MPAA's job for them -- I simply want to show that CSS isn't the only thing they could do, or are doing. Arguments that CSS thwarts "progress" probably don't rely on the sort of minimally invasive test. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 14:05:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA15081 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:05:23 -0400 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 OAA15078 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:05:23 -0400 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA11593 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:07:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <393FD071.8C6C968@travel-net.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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Dan Steinberg wrote: > I own a car that is capable of going (wellll, I wont say how fast Ive > driven it but its waaaaaaaaaay above posted speed limits). Is my > possession of this device illegal? of course not. The guy who drives > it at 151 mph is performing an illegal act and when he gets caught he > gets fined/suspended/glared at by the judge. when the cop passes me, > he/she just smiles and doesnt arrest me. my use of the device is > permissible so having one in my driveway is cool. > Having DeCSS should be just as cool ,even if it can or may one day > permit someone to *speed*. Since extending analogies ad absurdum seems to be the order of the day, let us assume that Congress has forbidden the sale/distribution of cars that are capable of driving at speeds over the speed limit.... When it comes to electronic media, Congress has passed such a law (17 USC 1201 something). The MPAA has sued under that law. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 14:42:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA15438 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:42:14 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA15435 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:42:13 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26539 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:43:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <393FDC3D.40825DD8@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:47:41 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Watermarking 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 > Arguments that CSS thwarts "progress" probably > don't rely on the sort of minimally invasive test. If one really wanted to question the relationship of CSS to the copyright theory, one could question how the "progress of science and useful arts" is promoted by the grant of copyright protection to encrypted material, especially when no provisions exist to decrypt the material for fair use purposes, or even when it is supposed to enter the public domain. That's another issue though. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 14:51:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA15618 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:51:57 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA15615 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:51:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07594 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:53:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:53:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <200006081735.KAA02233@scv1.apple.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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, awells wrote: > You're right that the owner of the copyright isn't usually in question, > so I had assumed that the point of watermarking was to be able to tell > who made the first copy. For instance, the MPAA might like something > like this to be the case: That's correct. As a professional graphic artist though, I've seen watermarking schemes for still images for a few years (Digimarc is included with Photoshop for starters) Anyway, as already demonstrated when Divx (the pay-per-view DVD, not the codec) used watermarking it results in degregation of the image. The more resistant to removal the watermark is, the the worse the picture actually looks. Typically watermarks consist of changes to the least significant bit of data. For example, a single 32 bit pixel in an image consists of 4 8 bit blocks. (R, G, B, and alpha) So a completely opaque white pixel would look like: 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 while a red pixel that was partially transparent would be: 00100111 00000000 00000000 0001000 This kind of watermark would then be a pattern of bits (say, every other least significant bit) throughout the whole image. The watermark detector looks at this pattern and checks to see if the bits in the correct locations are random (to it) or are a watermark. The white pixel, given a watermark would become: 11111110 11111111 11111110 11111111 ^ ^ and the red: 00100110 00000000 00000001 00010000 ^ ^ Obviously it takes a lot of these. changing more bits, or more significant bits (e.g. moving left from ...001 to ...011) is more likely to survive changes to the marked file, but also more visible to people. The LSB changes shown above for white and red are not noticable, really. Additionally the mark itself is not always the inverse of the original image's LSB - the pattern has to add up to it's own binary code. If an LSB is 0 and the bit the watermark needs in that spot is also 0 it would be left alone. False positives can be a problem, but I'd be pretty impressed if they actually happened. The odds are slim across an image of any decent size. However, having tested these things out before to determine how sturdy they are I was not all that impressed. At the ratios of watermark to original image where the image is not noticably worse for wear, the mark is trivially removed. Well, at least according to the watermark detection software that I've seen; it's possible that Digimarc or whomever keeps the industrial-strength stuff up their sleeves, but then I would have to entrust them with searching for my information and I don't particularly trust them to do so for small fry like me. (you already have to pay them to get a watermark at all) Resizing the image oddly (e.g. 98.5% of original), applying slight blurs, skewing it by a degree, all break watermarks. A really sturdy mark is going to make the movie look bad. On the Divx it was described as ripples or raindrops. I'm sure that given all the extra information that exists in a movie as opposed to a still image the marks can be more long-lived. But presently, I put no faith in the things. As with CSS it's a technology intended for use against amatures, not professionals. A pro can get around watermarking and could even buy a DVD he intends to copy with cash, in a different city or country. (and if you do mess with the digital files, some of the redundancy that helps the marks survive could probably be eliminated by using one discs video and another's audio, or otherwise splicing the contents of two discs together) Other schemes are in development for audio, and even printed material. (measuring minute introduced variations in the size, shape and alignment of letters) But I don't think that it will ever work well for combatting piracy. Particularly because in order to actually track anyone down (as opposed to determining if it's copyrighted material, which doesn't require marks most of the time) EACH copy has to be unique. Mass produced DVDs are not going to be unique. Hardware and software readers could be, but open source software readers are unlikely to be (and it would be easy to remove that function if desired) and DVD drives can't be or else there would be BAD things happening to software, which is not at all tolerant of being randomly altered, even a little bit. (IIRC a misplaced bracket caused a space probe to crash in the ocean once) Naturally the RIAA is working on watermarking as a part of SDMI, last I heard. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 14:53:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA15711 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:53:14 -0400 Received: from dial124.roadrunner.com (sf-du124.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.124]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA15704 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:53:12 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial124.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA02257 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:55:32 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:55:30 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608125530.A2136@localhost> References: <4.1.20000606175230.00a2f100@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> <0FVS0011DO57MW@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <20000607131253.A24204@thud.reric.net> <20000607164806.F31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607155248.A24825@thud.reric.net> <20000607172820.I31888@linuxpower.org> <20000607170500.A24972@thud.reric.net> <20000607162648.A3920@localhost> <20000607174628.A25091@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000607174628.A25091@thud.reric.net>; from eds@reric.net on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:46:28PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:46:28PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:26:49PM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > About 1/4 or 1/3 of U.S. residents attend college after graduating from > > high school. 4 years in college. Live for approx. 80 year. > > > > Order of magnitude, 1% of U.S. residents are college students. I'll try > > to get a real number this evening. > > > > What fraction live in a dorm and also have T1 or T3 or FDDI to their dorm > > room, I don't know. > > www.census.gov says: > 1990 total population: 248,709,873 > number enrolled in college: 17,917,028 > that's 7.2%. wow. > > I would still guess that the number of those in dorms with ethernet jacks > is pretty small <<1% of population, but I don't think that kind of > information is out there. Gladys M. Martinez and Andrea E. Curry "Current Population Reports: School Enrollment ... " for October 1998, issued September 1999, U.S. Census Bureau. 15.5 million college students. 9.4 million college students under 25 years of age. ============ Total population estimates: Resident Population Civilian Plus Armed Noninsti- Resident Forces Civilian tutional Population Overseas Population Population [ ... ] 1998 [ ... ] October 1 270,982 271,240 269,753 265,957 [ ... ] That's 3.5 % of the resident population as an upper bound on the number of college students in dormatories in October 1998. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:02:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA15922 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:02:58 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA15919 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:02:57 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVU006FCMVB4C@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:14:35 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-reply-to: <200006072254.SAA22429@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVU006FDMVB4C@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20000607183344.J31888@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > During argument yesterday about whether DeCSS has been actually > used to make illegal copies, and the MPAA's inability to show a > single example despite screaming to the press about the threat, > Judge Kaplan cut off debate, saying, "let me assure you that if > the plaintiffs cannot provide evidence of illegal copying as alleged > in the complaint, this matter will be brought to an immediate close." > > Opposing counsel and the courtroom went silent. From down DC > way a shriek was heard from Jack Valenti: get Schumann cracking. > Bob pecked his box: "l0pht, patch me into Bulgaria, MoRE's got > a job." This is why doing the practical transfer speed estimates are necessary. Even if they can't find a documented case, they can construct some plausibility argument extrapolating based on Napster usage, for example. As it appears from the above, if you can cut off their air supply at their end of the argument, this case is over and done with. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:04:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA15996 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:04:54 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA15993 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:04:53 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVU000K7NET74@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:26:18 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-reply-to: <393F0CD8.69859895@mindspring.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVU000K8NET74@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 > Ken Arromdee wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: > > > Besides, the existance of programs like divx really, really hurts this > > > argument. Even though divx reduces the picture quality, it reduces the > > > bandwidth requirement from ~10GB to ~1GB of data, which leaves them > > > still able to make the argument that DeCSS enables one to turn a DVD into > > > an internet-distributable file. > > > > If you don't care about reducing the picture quality, you don't need divx and > > DeCSS. You just play the DVD through a regular DVD player and use a video > > capture card. > > > > The only reason that DVD copying is any different from the kind of copying > > that has always been possible for anything is the ability to make perfect > > copies without loss of quality. If you accept loss of quality, there's no > > difference left. > > I note in passing that re-encoding from a decoded mpeg will probably result in > a poorer compression ratio -- remember how it's hard to make jpegs out of GIFs? Well hang on a second here. I thought there was a larger issue -- if I am not mistaken, I thought stand alone DVD players were required to output in "Macrovision" which in theory is supposed to stop analog copying. (And video capture essentially takes analog video input and converts to digital right?) > in the I-frames at least and perhaps the p and b frames as well and hense > (perhaps) will become unsuitable for writing to dvd (too large) > > or broadband transmission (too much bandwidth necessary) or in a much > worse picture quality. Its good to "know" these things, but I am wondering if we can't more acurately quantify this stuff. > I mention this because I think that copyright law and paracopyright law > inparticular (due to the commerce clause invocation -- remember that thread?) > requires us to make a test of commercial impact when determining fair use. > > That is if no one is going to pay for crappy divx transmission or if dvd sales > are not affected, then perhaps it is a case of fair use. Right. Essentially tape recording CD's was not a big deal, nor was taping TV shows. Why should DivX-ing DVD be substantially different? (I've seen the DivX quality -- in comparison to DVD quality, I would call it unacceptable; its about VHS quality or worse (but better in that it will never further degrade of course).) > Now as far as cimcurmention and the DMCA, either DeCSS circumvents or not > regardless of the existance of divx. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:09:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16420 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:09:04 -0400 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 PAA16417 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:08:57 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl119.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.119]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA23172 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:10:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:05:40 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > At least when Valenti was before Congress, the MPAA's point was slightly > > different than this: that -digital- copying has very little (I think he > > said "none") generational loss. That's subtley different from the above > > point. If you grab the data from the display device with whatever quality > > is available to the viewer, that loss of quality only happens _once_. All > > the subsequent generations need have no more loss than copying the digital > > data directly (i.e. without a re-digitization step). > > That still doesn't require DeCSS--you can use a video capture card or just > use a camcorder as someone else suggested. Once you've captured it you can > still copy it without another loss of quality. > > The only unique part about DeCSS here is that the original copy has no loss > of quality, not the successive copies. Let's not lose sight of the fact that DeCSS, with or without DivX, does NOT, in fact, allow you to make a perfect copy of a DVD. It allows you to copy unencrypted VOB files to your hard drive or another medium. There's a lot more to a DVD than VOB files, in fact the VOB files are arguably the least creative parts of the title. Furthermore, even a DVD is not a "perfect copy" of a film - it is another medium of expression altogether. Decrypting, copying, and reassembling VOB files is at least two steps removed from the original work, even though it does restore the work to its original linear form. This is just another case of obfuscation on the part of the MPAA. You have to question everything they claim. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:19:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16618 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:19:03 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA16614 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:18:58 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07741 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:20:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:20:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <0FVU000K8NET74@mta6.snfc21.pbi.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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Paul Hsieh wrote: > Well hang on a second here. I thought there was a larger issue -- if I am not > mistaken, I thought stand alone DVD players were required to output in > "Macrovision" which in theory is supposed to stop analog copying. (And video > capture essentially takes analog video input and converts to digital right?) Macrovision is pretty simple stuff. IIRC it only messes with the automatic gain control on a VCR. TVs just ignore it. Older VCRs do too. There are boxes you can plug in between the macrovision source and the recording/display device that filter it out, and I'm sure there are whole classes of devices that ignore it. Macrovision targets VCRs and that's it. Not analog copying in general. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:22:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16731 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:22:22 -0400 Received: from dial120.roadrunner.com (sf-du120.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.120]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA16728 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:22:19 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial120.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02480 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:24:30 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:24:29 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Watermarking, was: New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608132429.A2343@localhost> References: <200006081735.KAA02233@scv1.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from cpt@gryphon.auspice.net on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 02:53:03PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 02:53:03PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: [ ... ] > As with CSS it's a technology intended for use against amatures, not > professionals. A pro can get around watermarking and could even buy a DVD > he intends to copy with cash, in a different city or country. (and if you > do mess with the digital files, some of the redundancy that helps the > marks survive could probably be eliminated by using one discs video and > another's audio, or otherwise splicing the contents of two discs together) [ ... ] Something I wrote in my original message was misleading. I quoted the "but we need it" argument, and I said I didn't want to their job for them. I did not mean "find a technically sound solution" to this "problem". I meant investigate the alternatives. While we agree that none of these things are technically effective, that doesn't mean the law should forbid stupid little tricks -- so long as they are not a cover to revoke first sale, fair use, non-copyright use, etc. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:24:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16778 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:24:58 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA16775 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:24:57 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVU004JYNYH60@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:38:06 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-reply-to: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C19@mail2.onetouch.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVU004JZNYH60@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 > If you're copying from one section to another on the same > drive, what he said about speed applies. But when copying from > one hard drive to a different hard drive different rules apply. > > The best speed would (I think) come from fast/wide SCSI with > bus-mastering capability ... I -think- that "bus mastering" > is the feature that lets the CPU stay out of the equation and > lets the two drives talk directly to each other. (Someone > w/ a bit more knowledge at this level could probably straighten > me out here...) DMA decreases the hand holding, but higher layer data protocols (interpreting the file system to know what sectors belong to what files, etc.) still require the CPU. Therefore the data does make it to main memory with some "CPU touches it" overhead. As far as the fastest drives on earth possible are concerned, "RAID" is a further step that can be made to improve performance. You are also correct that SCSI will be faster than IDE. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:28:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16876 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:28:59 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA16872 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:28:58 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVU00BJ0OT0ZX@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:56:29 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-reply-to: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVU00BJ1OT0ZX@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <393FD071.8C6C968@travel-net.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > I agree with this. It's good to poke holes in the Seven Minute Miracle (7MM > [PH]), but we have to remember how far it gets us: about as far as it got Matt > Pavlovich. To return to lingo used in the early days of this list, we have > to get them out of the sandbox. The best response we can make, strictly > technically, to their Miracle arguments is that they drastically > oversimplify a complex situation, and the best ammo we can generate in > support of that statement is to accumulate statements to the contrary - which, > lo and behold, we've been doing. Well wait a second. I don't expect that more credible evidence that shoots the 7MM would necessarily be presented in court directly. For example, if a public dissemination of more credible analysis were presented it would in fact make the prosecution think twice about doing worthless estimates and presenting them as fact. When it is asked of them to produce credible evidence of the 7MM in the fact of public demonstrations to the contrary, they themselves will be eager to leave the sandbox. > [...] Always, though, we must couple such a response with the fact that > the technical convenience of potential piracy is irrelevant to this case, and drag > the terms of the argument back to: convenience in trading DVD info, mp3 info, > or any other type of info does not warrant restriction of inalienable rights (and all > the things that those rights support); potential for piracy can not be the same > thing as piracy itself. Well, if you show that the potential isn't there, I think that's a reasonable way of showing that it isn't there in the first place. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:29:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16882 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:29:03 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA16875 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:28:59 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FVU00BJ0OT0ZX@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:56:29 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-reply-to: <393FD071.8C6C968@travel-net.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FVU00BJ4OT1ZX@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 > Ummmmmmmmm, I've lurked on this thread since I figure most on the list > know how I feel about going down this road. But just for old-tymes > sake. I think its a mistake for *US* to deal with this whole issue. Its a > no-win situation. Even if we prove something is not possible today, > its probably possible tomorrow. Well wait a second. CPU's increase with Moore's law, graphics speed increase like a bat out of hell, and drive spinning speed always increases. But networking is a little different. Upgrading a network is somewhat harder to do, since its typically not just an end- user's computer that is involved. Furthermore with the need for backward compatibility, its not nearly as easy to improve the fundamental performance of a network. I think with the availability of broadband, we have already done most of what can be done with the client side technology. Further improvement need to be up the pipe -- but that's much much harder. Basically I think the progress will be much slower that other PC technologies, so if we can show its not practical at all today, we can further project that it will be many years before it is. > Our point should *always* be that it's about use. DeCSS sez nothing > about the use someome makes of the ones and zeroes that come out of > the box. Yes but we are also fighting the DMCA which reads like we are starting with a handicap. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:36:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17042 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:36:18 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA17038 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:36:17 -0400 Message-ID: <20000608193722.23438.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:37:22 PDT Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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: > Look, I understand your concern. But I respectfully disagree. > > The plaintiffs have already chosen to make this an issue, using > vastly overblown claims. It's true their claims have a tiny kernel of > truth. But the overblown claims are out there, and there's two > choices for the defense: > > 1. Let the overblown claims (7 minute internet movie downloads) > stand, or > > 2. Show that the claims are unrealistic. I agree, it's always good to point out when the opposition is trying to make false, exagerated, or misleading claims. Schumann's claims create a bogus impression that supports their claims of present, not future harm. While 100baseT isn't as fast as Schumann claims, it is pretty fast, and 1000baseT is on the horizon. We should point out that he made way too strong of a claim, but then be prepared to show that even with the correct numbers, there is no new harm added to the situation by DeCSS. Actually in the world of tomorrow with super-fast networks capable of transmitting GB files in minutes or seconds, the raw video output could be recompressed and sent over the network. I guarantee you someone will make video cards that allow this over the objections of the MPAA and others. Then it will be hard to stop authorized players from allowing access violations: remoteclient$ssh dvdserver dvdserver$dvdplayer movie And up pops a nice gnome or kde window that uses the compressed X-forwarding that is built in to secure shell (ssh) and the 'authorized' program dvdplayer to watch your movie over the network. Or maybe you just use your web browser, because someone has written an apache module to stream mpeg-7 compressed video card output. My point is that DVD's depend today on limited bandwidth to be a viable model, so let's talk about actual present harms, not future speculative harms. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:38:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17095 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:38:28 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA17092 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:38:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07827 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:39:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:39:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Watermarking, was: New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000608132429.A2343@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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > Something I wrote in my original message was misleading. I quoted the > "but we need it" argument, and I said I didn't want to their job for > them. I did not mean "find a technically sound solution" to this > "problem". I meant investigate the alternatives. While we agree that > none of these things are technically effective, that doesn't mean the > law should forbid stupid little tricks -- so long as they are not > a cover to revoke first sale, fair use, non-copyright use, etc. Well as already discussed, there simply is no classical technical solution that covers all the bases as far as permitting fair use, etc but still blocking infringements. Mostly I had just been trying to address the question of how watermarking worked, and then for free I tossed in how it's easy to defeat as long as other information is more important (AFAIK) But yes, protections of copyright have less societal value than fair use does, and this is commonly accepted. If something harms fair use in exchange for greater copyright protection it can't stand. Low-degredation marking, though just as defeatable as CSS and preventing infringing copying just as little, would be a better way to go. The videophiles will raise hell though ;) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 15:53:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17323 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:53:12 -0400 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 PAA17320 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:53:10 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1308O6-0005vY-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:54:46 +0200 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:54:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000608193722.23438.qmail@web515.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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > remoteclient$ssh dvdserver > dvdserver$dvdplayer movie > > And up pops a nice gnome or kde window that uses the compressed > X-forwarding that is built in to secure shell (ssh) and the > 'authorized' program dvdplayer to watch your movie over the network. Or > maybe you just use your web browser, because someone has written an > apache module to stream mpeg-7 compressed video card output. What about the the Linux players rumoured to be in development. What is there to stop someone to rewriting the DVD kernel drivers into allowing remote access of the DVD drive (ioctls and all). Remote viewing would then be possible regardless of the many restrictions in the DVDCCA licensing regime. What dim view would the MPAA take of such a driver when viewed through the spectacles of the DMCA ? ( Given 10% of a 7MM ) 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 Jun 8 15:53:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17330 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:53:19 -0400 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA17327 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:53:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20000608195422.28180.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:54:22 PDT Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:54:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Watermarking 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 --- John Schulien wrote: > > Arguments that CSS thwarts "progress" probably > > don't rely on the sort of minimally invasive test. > > If one really wanted to question the relationship > of CSS to the copyright theory, one could > question how the "progress of science and useful > arts" is promoted by the grant of copyright > protection to encrypted material, especially > when no provisions exist to decrypt the > material for fair use purposes, or even when > it is supposed to enter the public domain. > > That's another issue though. Actually maybe not -- you could find plenty of judicial precedent that the Constitutional purpose of the copyright quid-pro-quo is to reward authors now in order to give access to their works to posterity. When Congress passes laws that help authors profit from works taken from the public domain while avoiding access to the works for posterity, Congress has exceeded the authority that the people, who own the public domain, have given it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 16:23:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA17803 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:23:19 -0400 Received: from mrs-1.smartworld.net (mrs-1-fix.smartworld.net [216.70.64.24]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA17800 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:23:18 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-135.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.32.135]) by mrs-1.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA64760 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:24:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004d01bfd187$9da9bc00$4c1bfea9@oemcomputer> From: "freewwweb" To: References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1C@mail2.onetouch.com> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Schumann and DeCSS copies Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:24:48 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > If they are hunting for an instance of copying using DeCSS, it may > behoove us to find an instance that did -not- require DeCSS so that > we may show that DeCSS is actually irrelevant re. the piracy issue. More than that, if we can show DeCSS is extraneous to (consumer) piracy, but is important for consumers to exercise fair use rights, then we have met the test of 1201. In that case, DeCSS is not primarily designed to subvert an access control protecting an exclusive right of the copyrightholder. > I believe that earlier precedents make media shifting "fair use", > in particular if you own a record or CD you can copy it onto cassette > tape so that you can listen to the music you purchased in your car. > > If anybody can find any actual case law on media shifting as fair use, > that would probably be a good thing to have in our arsenal. There is time-shifting (the Betamax case, Sony v. Universal Studios, 464 US 417 (1984), http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html ) and space shifting (the RIO case, RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia (9th Cir., 1999), http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9856727.html ). The space-shifting argument would apply, except that case was under the (more consumer friendly) provisions of the Audio Home Recording Act. This case is under the (consumer hating) DMCA. In fact, in the legislative history of the DMCA, Congress stated that 1201 was designed to create a separate test for restriction of access control circumvention devices, above and beyond Betmax. So the Betamax test still applies for copyright infringement, but (theoretically) the MPAA need only meet the much lower threshold of 1201 to bar an access-circumvention device. They'll argue that, but it won't work. So-assuming that 1201 only protects access controls on the exclusive rights of a copyright holder, even -IF-, as Schumann so boldly declares, DeCSS commits the horrible crime of making a good copy of the DVD movie on your own hard drive, there is still a good argument this is permissible space shifting under the RIO case, especially given the crippling limitations of MPAA-gacked DVD players. Note that there are a lot of assumption, a lot of hurdles, in this argument. The fact that the AHRA applies to the RIO case, while the DMCA applies here, doesn't make a difference to the 9th circuit's "space shifting" argument by my reading. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 16:36:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA18004 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:36:44 -0400 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 QAA17998 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:36:43 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA30048 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:38:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:38:21 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608153821.A30021@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 01:05:40PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 01:05:40PM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > > Let's not lose sight of the fact that DeCSS, with or without DivX, does > NOT, in fact, allow you to make a perfect copy of a DVD. It allows you > to copy unencrypted VOB files to your hard drive or another medium. > There's a lot more to a DVD than VOB files, in fact the VOB files are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > arguably the least creative parts of the title. Furthermore, even a DVD ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > is not a "perfect copy" of a film - it is another medium of expression > altogether. Decrypting, copying, and reassembling VOB files is at least > two steps removed from the original work, > even though it does restore the work to its original linear form. Can you explain what you mean here? The VOB files contain the MPEG video and audio data. How can you say that's not creative? Are you confusing VOB files with IFO files? Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 16:39:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA18087 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:39:20 -0400 Received: from mrs-1.smartworld.net (mrs-1-fix.smartworld.net [216.70.64.24]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA18084 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:39:19 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-135.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.32.135]) by mrs-1.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA56854 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:41:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005401bfd189$e152fbe0$4c1bfea9@oemcomputer> From: "freewwweb" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:41:06 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Macrovision is pretty simple stuff. IIRC it only messes with the automatic > gain control on a VCR. TVs just ignore it. Older VCRs do too. There are > boxes you can plug in between the macrovision source and the > recording/display device that filter it out, and I'm sure there are whole > classes of devices that ignore it. Actually, take a look at section 1201(k) of the anticircumvention provisions. it was added at the last minute, and it makes macrovision-defeating vcrs or devices very illegal. it even makes it illegal to sell a non-macrovision vcr! this entire section was never debated in congress, it was just slipped in at the last minute. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 16:55:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA18250 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:55:42 -0400 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 QAA18247 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:55:41 -0400 Received: from travel-net.com (trj72.travel-net.com [207.176.160.72]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28947 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:57:07 -0400 Message-ID: <3940089B.FF74D5D@travel-net.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 16:56:59 -0400 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1B@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000608122821.A28631@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 OK I figure that this thread has probably gone waaaaaay beyond the message I am replying to but there's a few hundred messages in my inbox and I think I may actually be going out tonight so excuse me if I go over all ground. That said, I too respectfully disagree. While there may be a need to shoot down overblown claims, it probably is a decision for the defense team, not ours. And I think that *if* there is such a need they would probably ask someone else other than openlaw to do it. It would probably make sense to have some completely independent group do the testing and report, like some university playing in the high-speed internet game or something. Face it, the whole world knows where we stand on this issue, so it would not be surprising if we came up with arguments and even evidence against Schumann's declaration. But if there is a need to shoot it down, a better *gun* than openlaw can surely be found. That may not sound *right* but we really have to be careful to remember that there are people who are actually named in the suits who stand to lose immediately should their case fall apart. Eric Seppanen wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:16:47AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eric Seppanen [mailto:eds@reric.net] > > ... > > > A. His focus on bandwidth requirements essentially admit that movie > > > piracy (both serving and downloading movies) is impossible > > > for 99% of the > > > internet. This is an important point and we should take the > > > opportunity > > > to insure the judge got it. > > > > > > > Let's not get sidetracked. The question is not whether piracy > > is practical or not -- because if it is not now, it will be in > > the not-to-distant future. The issue is whether the spectre of > > piracy is enough to justify measures that prevent otherwise > > legal activities (i.e. "fair use"). > > > > When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's easy to forget > > that you came there to drain the swamp... > > Look, I understand your concern. But I respectfully disagree. > > The plaintiffs have already chosen to make this an issue, using vastly > overblown claims. It's true their claims have a tiny kernel of truth. > But the overblown claims are out there, and there's two choices for the > defense: > > 1. Let the overblown claims (7 minute internet movie downloads) stand, or > > 2. Show that the claims are unrealistic. > > I repeat, I don't think this is a good core defense argument. It's damage > control, just sticking fingers in the dike long enough for the _real_ > arguments to win the case. > > Eric -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 17:10:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18466 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:10:17 -0400 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 RAA18463 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:10:16 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl119.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.119]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA00378 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39400AF3.FD478EAD@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 15:07:00 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com> <20000608153821.A30021@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, Jun 08, 2000 at 01:05:40PM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > > > > Let's not lose sight of the fact that DeCSS, with or without DivX, does > > NOT, in fact, allow you to make a perfect copy of a DVD. It allows you > > to copy unencrypted VOB files to your hard drive or another medium. > > There's a lot more to a DVD than VOB files, in fact the VOB files are > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > arguably the least creative parts of the title. Furthermore, even a DVD > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > is not a "perfect copy" of a film - it is another medium of expression > > altogether. Decrypting, copying, and reassembling VOB files is at least > > two steps removed from the original work, > > even though it does restore the work to its original linear form. > > Can you explain what you mean here? The VOB files contain the MPEG video > and audio data. How can you say that's not creative? Are you confusing > VOB files with IFO files? > > Eric No, I'm not. I just returned from a two day DVD authoring class, and while that doesn't make me an expert, it does give me further insight into the process and the structure of DVDs. When I say VOB files are arguably the least creative parts of the title, what I mean is that they are no more than digitized video that is encoded and "plugged in" to the title. The really creative parts of the DVD are the menus and navigation controls. That doesn't mean the video and audio aren't creative, just that they are not the only or the most creative parts of a DVD. Remember, a DVD is a program. It contains material and instructions that were not present in the original film. When you apply DeCSS, you are not retaining these programmed materials, only stripping out the video and audio "assets". You can't make a perfect copy of a DVD by using DeCSS, because the tools to deconstruct (demux) a DVD title into its component parts (audio, video, subpicture, menus, commands, program chains, etc.) do not exist. Even if they did, you'd have to use a DVD authoring system to reassemble them into a "perfect" copy. The only ones currently capable of making a "perfect" copy of a DVD title are pirate replicators, and they don't use DeCSS or need it. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 17:16:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18606 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:16:37 -0400 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 RAA18603 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:16:36 -0400 Received: from travel-net.com (trj72.travel-net.com [207.176.160.72]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA30381 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:18:19 -0400 Message-ID: <39400D89.251C6D18@travel-net.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:18:01 -0400 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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: > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > I own a car that is capable of going (wellll, I wont say how fast Ive > > driven it but its waaaaaaaaaay above posted speed limits). Is my > > possession of this device illegal? of course not. The guy who drives > > it at 151 mph is performing an illegal act and when he gets caught he > > gets fined/suspended/glared at by the judge. when the cop passes me, > > he/she just smiles and doesnt arrest me. my use of the device is > > permissible so having one in my driveway is cool. > > Having DeCSS should be just as cool ,even if it can or may one day > > permit someone to *speed*. > > Since extending analogies ad absurdum seems to be the order of the day, > let us assume that Congress has forbidden the sale/distribution of cars > that are capable of driving at speeds over the speed limit.... > When it comes to electronic media, Congress has passed such a law (17 USC > 1201 something). The MPAA has sued under > that law. > > Jeremy Actually they havent. Congress has more likely passed a law banning the use of reverse engineering to remove the speed-governers that the manufactures wanted to impose because it would allow them to make cheaper cars since cars that cant go fast dont have to be as well engineered... (and yes there is a governor in the engine management in my car, but my enlightened manufacturer has no problem with me changing it and even honors my warranty) -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 17:39:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:39:07 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f285.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.160]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA18773 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:39:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 35095 invoked by uid 0); 8 Jun 2000 21:40:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20000608214016.35094.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 208.41.124.35 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 14:40:16 PDT X-Originating-IP: [208.41.124.35] From: "Richard Ramos" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 21:40:16 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Actually, take a look at section 1201(k) of the anticircumvention >provisions. it was added at the last minute, and it makes >macrovision-defeating vcrs or devices very illegal. it even makes it >illegal to sell a non-macrovision vcr! this entire section was never >debated in congress, it was just slipped in at the last minute. So then what about companies that sell DVD Players that are Region-Free and have Macrovision disabled? Remember that some countries do not allow region codes. Richard ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 17:55:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18928 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:55:43 -0400 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA18925 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:55:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20000608215652.3206.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 14:56:52 PDT Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:56:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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: > No, I'm not. I just returned from a two day DVD authoring class, > and while that doesn't make me an expert, it does give me further > insight into the process and the structure of DVDs. [...] > Remember, a DVD is a program. It contains material and instructions > that were not present in the original film. Did any of the course materials actually use the word 'program' or 'software instructions'. It would be really clean to have a DVD-industry document that used these words. What is the name of the 'language' that the instructions are written in? Is there a specification for this that can be cited by name? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 17:56:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19024 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:56:44 -0400 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA19021 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:56:43 -0400 Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:57:50 -0700 Received: from pchecker (pchecker.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.254.128]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 35-62055U1500L100S0V35) with SMTP id gov for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:57:52 -0700 Message-Id: <4.1.20000608143551.00a31440@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: richard_hecker@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 15:01:52 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Richard A. Hecker" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 plaintiffs have already chosen to make this an issue, using vastly >overblown claims. It's true their claims have a tiny kernel of truth. >But the overblown claims are out there, and there's two choices for the >defense: >1. Let the overblown claims (7 minute internet movie downloads) stand, or >2. Show that the claims are unrealistic. If choice 2 is selected, the argument can be made that the same faulty logic applies to their assessment of the "real threat faced by content owners" that he talked about in item 4. This choice may best be left to the lawyers, but we serve a purpose if we point out when their side plays games with the specs without any consideration for real world data. I doubt there is _any_ kernel of truth, just a formula that say's it might be possible. Richard From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 17:59:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19077 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:59:07 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA19074 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:59:05 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA26439 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:00:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3940181C.DA9B903E@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:03:08 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 I think a developing client-server DVD software would be the apex of DVD software, but I have to question whether the DVDCCA would license someone to write such software (as it would be a direct attack on the CCA part of their name and mission). So our choices would be to challenge the discriminatory licensing scheme (unlikely to succeed) or to develop software that accomplishes this irrespective of their license through reverse engineering (and then have the DMCA ruled unconstitutional in the subsequent legal battle). Sound like a plan? Okay, so let's get to work. :) > What about the the Linux players rumoured to be in development. What > is there to stop someone to rewriting the DVD kernel drivers into > allowing remote access of the DVD drive (ioctls and all). Remote > viewing would then be possible regardless of the many restrictions > in the DVDCCA licensing regime. What dim view would the MPAA take of > such a driver when viewed through the spectacles of the DMCA ? ( Given > 10% of a 7MM ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 18:13:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA19452 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:13:15 -0400 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 SAA19449 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:13:14 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA30437 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:14:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:14:53 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608171453.A30372@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com> <20000608153821.A30021@thud.reric.net> <39400AF3.FD478EAD@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <39400AF3.FD478EAD@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 03:07:00PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 03:07:00PM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > > When I say VOB files are arguably the least creative parts of the title, what > I mean is that they are no more than digitized video that is encoded and > "plugged in" to the title. The really creative parts of the DVD are the menus > and navigation controls. That doesn't mean the video and audio aren't > creative, just that they are not the only or the most creative parts of a > DVD. Just because the only "creative" part of the film-to-DVD conversion is creating menus and navigation controls doesn't mean that the digitized video is not a creative work. It's just that the creativity occured at a much earlier stage-- the filming. I'm sorry, I don't follow your argument at all here. > Remember, a DVD is a program. It contains material and instructions that were > not present in the original film. When you apply DeCSS, you are not retaining > these programmed materials, only stripping out the video and audio "assets". > > You can't make a perfect copy of a DVD by using DeCSS, because the tools to > deconstruct (demux) a DVD title into its component parts (audio, video, > subpicture, menus, commands, program chains, etc.) do not exist. Even if > they did, you'd have to use a DVD authoring system to reassemble them into a > "perfect" copy. The program chains are not lost when encryption is stripped. The pieces in the VOB file are still there (timestamps, alternate soundtracks, etc), and the IFO files aren't even encrypted in the first place. No damage occurs whatsoever during decryption-- that's why the point has been made all along that DeCSS decryption is identical to licensed player decryption. It's only what's done with the decrypted data that's different. > The only ones currently capable of making a "perfect" copy of a DVD title are > pirate replicators, and they don't use DeCSS or need it. A hard drive copy of decrypted VOBs along with the IFO files composes a title that is equivalent in every way with the encrypted original. I think you're badly mistaken. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 18:16:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA19565 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:16:14 -0400 Received: from dial235.roadrunner.com (sf-du235.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.235]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA19562 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:16:12 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial235.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03408 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:18:36 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:18:35 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(k), was: New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608161834.A3131@localhost> References: <20000608214016.35094.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000608214016.35094.qmail@hotmail.com>; from crazed376@hotmail.com on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 09:40:16PM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 09:40:16PM +0000, Richard Ramos wrote: > > > >Actually, take a look at section 1201(k) of the anticircumvention > >provisions. it was added at the last minute, and it makes > >macrovision-defeating vcrs or devices very illegal. it even makes it > >illegal to sell a non-macrovision vcr! this entire section was never > >debated in congress, it was just slipped in at the last minute. > > So then what about companies that sell DVD Players that are Region-Free and > have Macrovision disabled? Remember that some countries do not allow region > codes. Those are players. (k) applies to the recording function. 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; [ ... blah blah blah, lot more kinds of recorders specified ... ] Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 18:17:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA19607 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:17:09 -0400 Received: from dial235.roadrunner.com (sf-du235.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.235]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA19604 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:17:07 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial108.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02695 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:54:27 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:54:26 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608135426.B2343@localhost> References: <200006081735.KAA02233@scv1.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from cpt@gryphon.auspice.net on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 02:53:03PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 18:36:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA19790 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:36:52 -0400 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 SAA19787 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:36:51 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl119.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.119]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA04831 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39401F3E.42662A2F@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 16:33:35 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <20000608215652.3206.qmail@web514.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: > Did any of the course materials actually use the word 'program' or > 'software instructions'. It would be really clean to have a > DVD-industry document that used these words. There are player parameters and navigation commands. For example: "Compare is an instruction used to compare values of two arguments." Arguments include bitwise and, equal, not equal, greater than or equal to, greater than, less than or equal to, and less than. Unfortunately, I was learning on a system that uses a GUI, so the code was pretty much hidden (and I'm not a programmer). I did see some of the underlying code, and it looked like C++ or a reasonable facsimile. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 19:11:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA20065 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:11:29 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA20062 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:11:28 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:13:34 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C20@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:13:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Seppanen [SMTP:eds@reric.net] > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:16:47AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eric Seppanen [mailto:eds@reric.net] > > ... > > > A. His focus on bandwidth requirements essentially admit that movie > > > piracy (both serving and downloading movies) is impossible > > > for 99% of the > > > internet. This is an important point and we should take the > > > opportunity > > > to insure the judge got it. > > > > > > > Let's not get sidetracked. The question is not whether piracy > > is practical or not -- because if it is not now, it will be in > > the not-to-distant future. The issue is whether the spectre of > > piracy is enough to justify measures that prevent otherwise > > legal activities (i.e. "fair use"). > > > > When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's easy to forget > > that you came there to drain the swamp... > > Look, I understand your concern. But I respectfully disagree. > > The plaintiffs have already chosen to make this an issue, using vastly > overblown claims. It's true their claims have a tiny kernel of truth. > But the overblown claims are out there, and there's two choices for the > defense: > > 1. Let the overblown claims (7 minute internet movie downloads) stand, or > > 2. Show that the claims are unrealistic. > > I repeat, I don't think this is a good core defense argument. It's damage > control, just sticking fingers in the dike long enough for the _real_ > arguments to win the case. > > Which was my point, really. There seems to have been a -lot- of focus on this issue, and I just want to make certain that we don't lose sight of the fact that it really isn't the main point to address, but a side issue only. -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 19:13:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA20168 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:13:29 -0400 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 TAA20165 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:13:28 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA31747 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:15:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:15:07 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608181507.A31731@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1B@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000608122821.A28631@thud.reric.net> <3940089B.FF74D5D@travel-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <3940089B.FF74D5D@travel-net.com>; from dstein@travel-net.com on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 04:56:59PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 04:56:59PM -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote: > > That said, I too respectfully disagree. While there may be a need to > shoot down overblown claims, it probably is a decision for the defense > team, not ours. Of course, I did't mean to advocate taking any action without the knowledge and agreement of the defense attorneys, and ultimately, the defendants. Are the defense attorneys still following the list? Is anyone in contact with them to ask? Wendy? I'd be happy to send a polite inquiry asking if a little "white paper" from the list would be welcome, otherwise. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 19:23:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA20327 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:23:14 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA20324 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:23:13 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:25:18 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C21@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 1201(k), was: New Declaration of Robert W. Schu mann Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:25:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu They actually specify that it applies specifically to VHS recorders and not video recording devices in general? Wow. -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fenimore [SMTP:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 3:19 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(k), was: New Declaration of Robert W. > Schumann > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 09:40:16PM +0000, Richard Ramos wrote: > > > > > > >Actually, take a look at section 1201(k) of the anticircumvention > > >provisions. it was added at the last minute, and it makes > > >macrovision-defeating vcrs or devices very illegal. it even makes it > > >illegal to sell a non-macrovision vcr! this entire section was never > > >debated in congress, it was just slipped in at the last minute. > > > > So then what about companies that sell DVD Players that are Region-Free > and > > have Macrovision disabled? Remember that some countries do not allow > region > > codes. > > Those are players. (k) applies to the recording function. > > 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; > > [ ... blah blah blah, lot more kinds of recorders specified ... ] > > > Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 19:40:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA20456 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:40:59 -0400 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 TAA20451 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:40:58 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl119.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.119]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA08327 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39402E46.C91BD3FE@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:37:42 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com> <20000608153821.A30021@thud.reric.net> <39400AF3.FD478EAD@cdpage.com> <20000608171453.A30372@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: > Just because the only "creative" part of the film-to-DVD conversion is > creating menus and navigation controls doesn't mean that the digitized > video is not a creative work. It's just that the creativity occured at a > much earlier stage-- the filming. I'm sorry, I don't follow your argument > at all here. Apparently not, since I never said it wasn't a creative work. > The program chains are not lost when encryption is stripped. The pieces > in the VOB file are still there (timestamps, alternate soundtracks, etc), > and the IFO files aren't even encrypted in the first place. No damage > occurs whatsoever during decryption-- that's why the point has been made > all along that DeCSS decryption is identical to licensed player > decryption. It's only what's done with the decrypted data that's > different. I never said the program chains were lost. The point is that DeCSS is not the tool that allows you to make a perfect digital copy of a DVD. > > A hard drive copy of decrypted VOBs along with the IFO files composes a > title that is equivalent in every way with the encrypted original. I > think you're badly mistaken. I think I've just been badly misunderstood. I'm sorry, but that is NOT a "perfect" digital copy. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 21:00:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA21002 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:00:13 -0400 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 VAA20999 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:00:12 -0400 Received: from [38.32.79.107] (helo=ip107.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 130DBH-0002go-00; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:01:52 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 20:56:04 -0400 Message-ID: <8ue0ks47m8hhfh50joan6v18lkc3f6t5ai@4ax.com> References: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com> <20000608153821.A30021@thud.reric.net> <39400AF3.FD478EAD@cdpage.com> <20000608171453.A30372@thud.reric.net> <39402E46.C91BD3FE@cdpage.com> In-Reply-To: <39402E46.C91BD3FE@cdpage.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 VAA21000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:37:42 -0600, Dana Parker wrote: >Eric Seppanen wrote: > >I never said the program chains were lost. The point is that DeCSS is not the tool >that allows you to make a perfect digital copy of a DVD. > >> >> A hard drive copy of decrypted VOBs along with the IFO files composes a >> title that is equivalent in every way with the encrypted original. I >> think you're badly mistaken. > >I think I've just been badly misunderstood. I'm sorry, but that is NOT a "perfect" >digital copy. To clarify, the hard disk archive remains functional in a software player (as long as the file/directory names stay the same?) Then you just have to zip the thing recursively, or FedEx your hard drive. (Unless you are on a Schumann-style gigabit ethernet.) I've also been coming across programs like Subtitle rippers and vob tools, etc. Perhaps these will enable custom DVDs? MPAA is gonna love this(!) [re: the creative elements--] Time Inc. vs Bernard Geis is good to read for the status of the individual frames of a film. Before allowing a fair use of charcoal sketches from frames of the Zapruder film, it first discusses the creative aspects of each frame. I tend to compare a film with a book; individual frames with words that are pieces of a whole. But I'm wrong in that each frame of a film bears creative decisions on the part of the filmmaker: lighting, camera angle, etc. So each frame of a film seems to have the same legal status as a painting or still photograph. It's also an interesting case in that Geis was accessing something that had been published by the government (in the Warren Report), but not commercially. And while he had permission to use the Time magazine office, they hadn't given permission for using the film itself. [This gets further complicated by the fact that he was actually using photos enlarged from individual frames; and he decided to have an artist make charcoal sketches instead of reproducing those Time Life-produced photos.] __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 8 22:41:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA21568 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:41:03 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA21565 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:41:02 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 130Eks-00019I-00; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 19:42:42 -0700 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:42:42 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000608194242.L2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000608215652.3206.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> <39401F3E.42662A2F@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <39401F3E.42662A2F@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 04:33:35PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker writes: > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > Did any of the course materials actually use the word 'program' or > > 'software instructions'. It would be really clean to have a > > DVD-industry document that used these words. > > There are player parameters and navigation commands. For example: > "Compare is an instruction used to compare values of two arguments." > Arguments include bitwise and, equal, not equal, greater than or equal > to, greater than, less than or equal to, and less than. > > Unfortunately, I was learning on a system that uses a GUI, so the code > was pretty much hidden (and I'm not a programmer). I did see some of the > underlying code, and it looked like C++ or a reasonable facsimile. _DVD Demysitifed_ (1st ed.), pp. 146-154: PRESENTATION DATA STRUCTURE. The presentation data structure is overlaid on the physical data structure. (See Figs. 4.25 and 4.30.) The top level comprises titles. Each title contains up to 999 _program chains_ (PGCs). A program chain contains 0 to 99 _programs_ (PGs), which are ordered collections of pointers to cells. The physical data and the logical presentation data structure converge at the cell level. The PGC links cells together and indicates in what order the programs and cells are to be played. Programs within a PGC can be flagged for sequential play, random play (programs are randomly selected and may repeat), or shuffle play (programs are played in random order without repeats). Individual cells may be used by more than one program chain, which is how parental management and seamless branching are accomplished: different program chains define different sequences through mostly the same material. (See Figs. 4.25 and 4.30.) [...] NAVIGATION DATA STRUCTURE. As with presentation data, the navigation data structure is a logical hierarchy overlaid on the physical data structure. Navigation data is grouped into four categories: control, search, user interface, and navigation commands. (See Fig. 4.31.) [...] SEARCH DATA. The search data creates a navigational structure which can be steered through with the remote control or by program control (see the following section entitled "Navigation commands"). [...] NAVIGATION COMMANDS. Navigation commands provide DVD's branching and other interactive features. Each PGC can optionally begin with a set of precommands, followed by cells which can each have one optional command, followed by an optional set of postcommands. In total, a PGC cannot have more than 128 commands; but since commands are stored in a table at the beginning of the PGC and referenced by number, they can be used many times within the PGC. Cell commands are executed after the cell is presented. The commands are similar to computer CPU instruction words and are in fact instructions to the processing unit of the player. Each command is up to 8 bytes long and can consist of one, two, or three instructions. Instructions include * Math operations: add, subtract, multiply, divide, modulo, random * Logical (bitwise) operations: and, or, xor * Comparison: equal, not equal, greater than, greater than or equal to, less than, less than or equal to * Register operations: load (set), more, swap * Flow control: goto, link, jump, exit, etc. There are 24 system registers which hold information such as language code, audio and subpicture settings, and parental level (see Table 4.13). Some of these registers can be set by commands, allowing programs to control presentation of audio, video, subpicture, camera angles, and so on. There are 16 general 16-bit registers for such uses as keeping score or tracking status. A countdown timer is also provided. [...] BUTTONS. Information to create menu buttons is included in the command data. Up to 36 highlightable, rectangular buttons can be positioned on the screen. [...] The remote control is used to highlight buttons by jumping from one to another. Each button includes information for four directional links to determine which button on the screen is selected when the corresponding arrow keys are pressed on the remote control. [...] Each button has one command associated with it. This is generally a flow control command that links to a title or a PGC. PGCs are not required to contain programs (physically, they are not required to contain VOBs) and can simply be a set of precommands and postcommands. PGCs can be linked together, allowing a button to trigger an arbitrary large sequence of commands. OK, every go buy a copy of _DVD Demystified_ to support Jim Taylor and your local bookstore. :-) Taylor doesn't give any of the actual program instructions. I suspect they're a part of the DVD spec, which is only available under NDA. -- 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 Jun 8 23:01:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA21756 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:01:11 -0400 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 XAA21753 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:01:08 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (ddsl119.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.251.119]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA19231 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39405D2D.E833E4AB@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 20:57:49 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann References: <20000608215652.3206.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> <39401F3E.42662A2F@cdpage.com> <20000608194242.L2589@zork.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 Seth David Schoen wrote: > OK, every go buy a copy of _DVD Demystified_ to support Jim Taylor > and your local bookstore. :-) > > Taylor doesn't give any of the actual program instructions. I suspect > they're a part of the DVD spec, which is only available under NDA. It's been said before, if Jim had been with Microsoft when he wrote this book, he couldn't have written this book. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 02:32:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA22577 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:32:05 -0400 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 CAA22574 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:32:04 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 130IMS-0005lN-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:33:44 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:33:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <3940181C.DA9B903E@mninter.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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: > I think a developing client-server DVD software would be the apex of DVD > software, but I have to question whether the DVDCCA would license > someone to write such software (as it would be a direct attack on the > CCA part of their name and mission). The point is that Linux, by vitrue of beeing an open source OS allows for this to be done, regardless the DVDCCAs whims. A HW decoding board will need to acces the DVD drive through the kernel, like any other program. So when reading data, and issuing ioctl commands the player has no way of knowing whether the physical player is inside the computer, or patched by way of clever coding through 100mb network cable to the other end of the dorm. As the kernel driver doesn't do any decryption, only encrypted data is passed over the network. Protesting against such a setup would be about as smart as limiting the length of IDE cables by law. The clever thing about it is that that CSS is not broken, yet you get the exact same capabilities as described in RS 7MM horror sceneario. 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 Fri Jun 9 03:38:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA22933 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 03:38:49 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA22930 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 03:38:45 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA11881 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:40:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3940A0C8.D25B3D18@mninter.net> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 02:46:16 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 Well, I think you're right...mostly. I'd just point out that either the client or the server must decrypt the CSS. It doesn't matter which does it; although if I were designing it, out of my own unfortunate ignorance of efficient code, I would have the server software decrypt the stream so if more than one client wanted the data, the decryption would only be done once and done on a machine separate from the one(s) responsible for the MPEG2-playback. This would allow for something better than the RS 7M miracle because the MPEG2 data would be streamed, not stored-and-forwarded. Bandwith requirements would be de-emphasized. The point being that the two components must be complementary--the server must expect net socket requests and the client needs a server to provide data to play back. If one of them doesn't decrypt CSS, the other one must. The programmer gets to decide the division of labor, but not the nature of labor required. Thus, in order to develop a client-server playback method would require the scenarios I previously mentioned. a) CCA licenses the playback system (client-server, or one of the two)--and I maintain they wouldn't license a "network-aware" playback system. or b) the CSS decryption routines are REd (coincidentally already done) and the resultant playback system stands up to a inevitable legal challenge. Since (hypothetically) CCA would never license such a method (or would revoke a license if a project evolved to this point), we're left with an open-source project that can afford to defend itself. But you probably knew all this. :) Don't forget to send a check to the EFF. PS. My question is: What happens when Microsoft decides to "innovate" DVD playback into Windows? I've got a good feeling the CCA would license Windows for the right price--and then everyone's paying the CCA whether or not they want to use a free solution. Will consumers have a right to a CCA license refund? Well, to answer my own question: only if Judge Jackson's ruling is upheld. :) Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > As the kernel driver doesn't do any decryption, only encrypted data > is passed over the network. Protesting against such a setup would be > about as smart as limiting the length of IDE cables by law. The clever > thing about it is that that CSS is not broken, yet you get the exact > same capabilities as described in RS 7MM horror sceneario. > > frank From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 03:42:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA23041 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 03:42:30 -0400 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 DAA23038 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 03:42:29 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 130JSc-0007Vj-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:44:10 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:44:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Eisner on Internet piracy In-Reply-To: <39405D2D.E833E4AB@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 Someone stop this man please, he is clearly out of touch with reality. Government Law enforcment agencies have expressed concerns for years about the 4 great Horsemen of the internet: Money Laundreres, Drug Lords, Child pornographers and Encryption exporters, and proposed draconic measures to stop them ... with little progress. I suppose the copyright industry should give copyright violators a number among the Horsemen, stand back and wait in line... >Eisner's solution is controversial to say the least. "Piracy is a >technical problem which must be addressed with technical solutions," he >declared. "We need assurance that the people who manufacture computers >and operate ISPs will cooperate by incorporating the technology to look >for and respond" to technical controls. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/11267.html 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 Fri Jun 9 04:23:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA23414 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 04:23:17 -0400 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 EAA23411 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 04:23:13 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 130K61-0001vD-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:24:53 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:24:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <3940A0C8.D25B3D18@mninter.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, 9 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: > I'd just point out that either the client or the server must decrypt the > CSS. It doesn't matter which does it; although if I were designing it, > out of my own unfortunate ignorance of efficient code, I would have the > server software decrypt the stream so if more than one client wanted the > data, the decryption would only be done once and done on a machine > separate from the one(s) responsible for the MPEG2-playback. You do not want to decrypt on the server side, as this would just be a small variation on RSs 7MM. Decrypting on the client side, using a _Licenced_Player_ does the same as a 7MM, except _NO_ allegded circumvention of access controls occurs. For the player it is just business as usual, exchange keys with players, get disk key, title keys, get encrypted data and display to screen. Technically it is kind of sweet to show that DeCSS is not needed to reproduce the spectre of horrors in RSs 7MM, but does it bear any legal significance ? 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 Fri Jun 9 06:16:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA24426 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 06:16:21 -0400 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA24423 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 06:16:20 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inii48.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.72.136]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA20217 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 06:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006091018.GAA20217@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 06:16:43 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000608181507.A31731@thud.reric.net> References: <3940089B.FF74D5D@travel-net.com> <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1B@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000608122821.A28631@thud.reric.net> <3940089B.FF74D5D@travel-net.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 Eric wrote: >Are the defense attorneys still following the list? Is >anyone in contact with them to ask? Wendy? I'd be happy to send a polite >inquiry asking if a little "white paper" from the list would be welcome, >otherwise. In case Wendy misses this question: Yes, the defense team will welcome input for demolition of the Schumann declaration. It was quickly transcribed and put up for that purpose. The plaintiffs have mounted a strong counterattack of which the declaration is a part -- more of the fat filing will go up shortly. Proskauer is a huge firm, far larger than Frankfurt Garbus, I believe. It has around the world buildings packed with lawyers hungry for fees, and MPAA has bottomless pockets thanks to its global market. This is a fight they want, and are willing to keep it up indefinitely, using multiple platforms: court, congress, the media, lush contracts to consultants, lobbiests, lawyers, journalists, pr-firms, spies and rats, hackers paid to illegally copy using DeCSS and brag about it, all the usual tools of corporate war and commerce. Against that usual way of doing business -- and remember the purpose is to maximize profits by screwing customers, employees and creative artists (even while proclaiming corporate venality favors those interests) -- any contribution which genuinely boosts corporate vicitims' interest will be of help. What drives the corporate titans and their sucklings nuts is anti-hierarchy, the loss of iron-hand control. Without control they cannot assure their own wildly disproportionate reward at the expense of those who create and sustain valuable products. That's why Valenti, Eisner, Bronfman and the like are hysterically ranting to the press, and trying their damndest to avoid Marty Garbus plan to show they know squat of what they rant -- as do most showboating piggish CEOs. Proskauer, Schumann and others are gulping fees of the ignorant titans, and couldn't be happier about the defense keeping the fight going and making it more complicated. This is case is one of many, they pray and raindance. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 06:56:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA24851 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 06:56:25 -0400 Received: from mrs-2.smartworld.net (mrs-2-fix.smartworld.net [216.70.64.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA24848 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 06:56:24 -0400 Received: from winuser (ppp-165.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.32.165]) by mrs-2.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA73507 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004001bfd201$34e534e0$a5202640@winuser> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 06:55:19 -0400 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 > Technically it is kind of sweet to show that DeCSS is not needed to > reproduce the spectre of horrors in RSs 7MM, but does it bear any legal > significance ? MPAA: No significance. If DeCSS is primarily designed to circumvent access to a copyrighted work, without authorization, it is bannable whether useable for piracy or not. Real answer: Yes. Assuming CSS actually protects any exclusive rights of the copyright holder (a very debatable issue), if DeCSS has legitimate uses (protecting fair use, preventing tying by MPAA & pals), and is not necessary for piracy, and cannot be used to create the "perfect" copies complained of, then it cannot be banned as code-speech under the first amendment, regardless of how you interpret 1201(a). I am more convinced every day they included 1201(b) as a "catch all" in case 1201(a) was found in part or in whole unconstitutional. There is no intent to violate copyright law necessary here; in effect, the MPAA will surely argue that "access" is a new right of the copyright holder under 1201(a). Application of a technological measure initiates this new right, and the new right provides much stronger protection than the old s 106 rights, and has no fair use limitations. If this is their argument, it runs into the constraints of the copyright clause, commerce clause, and first amendment. So, yes, if DeCSS is unnecessary for piracy (even consumer piracy), but has substantial legitimate use as an aid to fair use and ordinary consumer use, as well as prevents tying of players to content by a monopolistic cartel with clear market power, then it has real significance. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 09:27:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA25983 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:27:24 -0400 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 JAA25980 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:27:23 -0400 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 JAA06414 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000609091956.02c92430@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 09:28:59 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <200006091018.GAA20217@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> References: <20000608181507.A31731@thud.reric.net> <3940089B.FF74D5D@travel-net.com> <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1B@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000608122821.A28631@thud.reric.net> <3940089B.FF74D5D@travel-net.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 06:16 AM 6/9/00 -0400, John Young wrote: >Eric wrote: > >Are the defense attorneys still following the list? Is > >anyone in contact with them to ask? Wendy? I'd be happy to send a polite > >inquiry asking if a little "white paper" from the list would be welcome, > >otherwise. John says it better than I could. I think a white paper summarizing the list's responses would be very helpful and much appreciated. --Wendy >In case Wendy misses this question: Yes, the defense team >will welcome input for demolition of the Schumann declaration. >It was quickly transcribed and put up for that purpose. The plaintiffs >have mounted a strong counterattack of which the declaration is >a part -- more of the fat filing will go up shortly. > >Proskauer is a huge firm, far larger than Frankfurt Garbus, I believe. >It has around the world buildings packed with lawyers hungry for fees, >and MPAA has bottomless pockets thanks to its global market. This >is a fight they want, and are willing to keep it up indefinitely, using >multiple platforms: court, congress, the media, lush contracts to >consultants, lobbiests, lawyers, journalists, pr-firms, spies and rats, >hackers paid to illegally copy using DeCSS and brag about it, all >the usual tools of corporate war and commerce. > >Against that usual way of doing business -- and remember the >purpose is to maximize profits by screwing customers, employees >and creative artists (even while proclaiming corporate venality >favors those interests) -- any contribution which genuinely >boosts corporate vicitims' interest will be of help. > >What drives the corporate titans and their sucklings nuts is >anti-hierarchy, the loss of iron-hand control. Without control >they cannot assure their own wildly disproportionate reward >at the expense of those who create and sustain valuable >products. That's why Valenti, Eisner, Bronfman and the >like are hysterically ranting to the press, and trying their >damndest to avoid Marty Garbus plan to show they >know squat of what they rant -- as do most showboating >piggish CEOs. > >Proskauer, Schumann and others are gulping fees of the >ignorant titans, and couldn't be happier about the defense >keeping the fight going and making it more complicated. >This is case is one of many, they pray and raindance. Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 09:52:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA26453 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:52:08 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA26450 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:52:05 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id JAA27531 for ; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 09:55:22 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 09:49:02 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 09:48:46 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: , Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id JAA26451 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes I am still following the list, but the volume of responses on the new declaration issue is HUGE, so I have collected them to read this weekend. That is to say, a white paper would be extremely welcome. thanks. >>> Wendy Seltzer 06/09/00 09:28AM >>> At 06:16 AM 6/9/00 -0400, John Young wrote: >Eric wrote: > >Are the defense attorneys still following the list? Is > >anyone in contact with them to ask? Wendy? I'd be happy to send a polite > >inquiry asking if a little "white paper" from the list would be welcome, > >otherwise. John says it better than I could. I think a white paper summarizing the list's responses would be very helpful and much appreciated. --Wendy >In case Wendy misses this question: Yes, the defense team >will welcome input for demolition of the Schumann declaration. >It was quickly transcribed and put up for that purpose. The plaintiffs >have mounted a strong counterattack of which the declaration is >a part -- more of the fat filing will go up shortly. > >Proskauer is a huge firm, far larger than Frankfurt Garbus, I believe. >It has around the world buildings packed with lawyers hungry for fees, >and MPAA has bottomless pockets thanks to its global market. This >is a fight they want, and are willing to keep it up indefinitely, using >multiple platforms: court, congress, the media, lush contracts to >consultants, lobbiests, lawyers, journalists, pr-firms, spies and rats, >hackers paid to illegally copy using DeCSS and brag about it, all >the usual tools of corporate war and commerce. > >Against that usual way of doing business -- and remember the >purpose is to maximize profits by screwing customers, employees >and creative artists (even while proclaiming corporate venality >favors those interests) -- any contribution which genuinely >boosts corporate vicitims' interest will be of help. > >What drives the corporate titans and their sucklings nuts is >anti-hierarchy, the loss of iron-hand control. Without control >they cannot assure their own wildly disproportionate reward >at the expense of those who create and sustain valuable >products. That's why Valenti, Eisner, Bronfman and the >like are hysterically ranting to the press, and trying their >damndest to avoid Marty Garbus plan to show they >know squat of what they rant -- as do most showboating >piggish CEOs. > >Proskauer, Schumann and others are gulping fees of the >ignorant titans, and couldn't be happier about the defense >keeping the fight going and making it more complicated. >This is case is one of many, they pray and raindance. Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 09:52:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA26528 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:52:46 -0400 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 JAA26522 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:52:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA06993 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:54:27 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:54:26 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000609091956.02c92430@pop.bellatlantic.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, 9 Jun 2000, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > At 06:16 AM 6/9/00 -0400, John Young wrote: > >Eric wrote: > > >Are the defense attorneys still following the list? Is > > >anyone in contact with them to ask? Wendy? I'd be happy to send a polite > > >inquiry asking if a little "white paper" from the list would be welcome, > > >otherwise. > > John says it better than I could. I think a white paper summarizing the > list's responses would be very helpful and much appreciated. Meanwhile I am working on updating what I have up at my website, based on the VOLUMINOUS responses made so far. Usually there is not much activity here over the weekend, but I will try to get the most debated answers up tonight, specifically targeting the Seven Minute Miracle statement and the statement against Matt's decl. It's my birthday everyone. happy birthday! sparky "old enough to repay, young enough to sell" > > --Wendy > > >In case Wendy misses this question: Yes, the defense team > >will welcome input for demolition of the Schumann declaration. > >It was quickly transcribed and put up for that purpose. The plaintiffs > >have mounted a strong counterattack of which the declaration is > >a part -- more of the fat filing will go up shortly. > > > >Proskauer is a huge firm, far larger than Frankfurt Garbus, I believe. > >It has around the world buildings packed with lawyers hungry for fees, > >and MPAA has bottomless pockets thanks to its global market. This > >is a fight they want, and are willing to keep it up indefinitely, using > >multiple platforms: court, congress, the media, lush contracts to > >consultants, lobbiests, lawyers, journalists, pr-firms, spies and rats, > >hackers paid to illegally copy using DeCSS and brag about it, all > >the usual tools of corporate war and commerce. > > > >Against that usual way of doing business -- and remember the > >purpose is to maximize profits by screwing customers, employees > >and creative artists (even while proclaiming corporate venality > >favors those interests) -- any contribution which genuinely > >boosts corporate vicitims' interest will be of help. > > > >What drives the corporate titans and their sucklings nuts is > >anti-hierarchy, the loss of iron-hand control. Without control > >they cannot assure their own wildly disproportionate reward > >at the expense of those who create and sustain valuable > >products. That's why Valenti, Eisner, Bronfman and the > >like are hysterically ranting to the press, and trying their > >damndest to avoid Marty Garbus plan to show they > >know squat of what they rant -- as do most showboating > >piggish CEOs. > > > >Proskauer, Schumann and others are gulping fees of the > >ignorant titans, and couldn't be happier about the defense > >keeping the fight going and making it more complicated. > >This is case is one of many, they pray and raindance. > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 09:58:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA26586 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:58:14 -0400 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 JAA26583 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:58:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA07189 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:59:55 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:59:55 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <004001bfd201$34e534e0$a5202640@winuser> 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, 9 Jun 2000, Doug Hudson wrote: > There is no intent to violate copyright law necessary here; in effect, the > MPAA will surely argue that "access" is a new right of the copyright holder > under 1201(a). Application of a technological measure initiates this new > right, and the new right provides much stronger protection than the old s > 106 rights, and has no fair use limitations. If this is their argument, it > runs into the constraints of the copyright clause, commerce clause, and > first amendment. And 1201 itself, no? I mean the section where it says that these clauses shall have no effect on the current state of fair use etc. sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 10:40:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26958 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:40:45 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26954 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:40:43 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA27692 for ; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:44:50 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:38:30 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:38:00 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id KAA26955 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu happy birthday! >>> sparky 06/09/00 09:54AM >>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > At 06:16 AM 6/9/00 -0400, John Young wrote: > >Eric wrote: > > >Are the defense attorneys still following the list? Is > > >anyone in contact with them to ask? Wendy? I'd be happy to send a polite > > >inquiry asking if a little "white paper" from the list would be welcome, > > >otherwise. > > John says it better than I could. I think a white paper summarizing the > list's responses would be very helpful and much appreciated. Meanwhile I am working on updating what I have up at my website, based on the VOLUMINOUS responses made so far. Usually there is not much activity here over the weekend, but I will try to get the most debated answers up tonight, specifically targeting the Seven Minute Miracle statement and the statement against Matt's decl. It's my birthday everyone. happy birthday! sparky "old enough to repay, young enough to sell" > > --Wendy > > >In case Wendy misses this question: Yes, the defense team > >will welcome input for demolition of the Schumann declaration. > >It was quickly transcribed and put up for that purpose. The plaintiffs > >have mounted a strong counterattack of which the declaration is > >a part -- more of the fat filing will go up shortly. > > > >Proskauer is a huge firm, far larger than Frankfurt Garbus, I believe. > >It has around the world buildings packed with lawyers hungry for fees, > >and MPAA has bottomless pockets thanks to its global market. This > >is a fight they want, and are willing to keep it up indefinitely, using > >multiple platforms: court, congress, the media, lush contracts to > >consultants, lobbiests, lawyers, journalists, pr-firms, spies and rats, > >hackers paid to illegally copy using DeCSS and brag about it, all > >the usual tools of corporate war and commerce. > > > >Against that usual way of doing business -- and remember the > >purpose is to maximize profits by screwing customers, employees > >and creative artists (even while proclaiming corporate venality > >favors those interests) -- any contribution which genuinely > >boosts corporate vicitims' interest will be of help. > > > >What drives the corporate titans and their sucklings nuts is > >anti-hierarchy, the loss of iron-hand control. Without control > >they cannot assure their own wildly disproportionate reward > >at the expense of those who create and sustain valuable > >products. That's why Valenti, Eisner, Bronfman and the > >like are hysterically ranting to the press, and trying their > >damndest to avoid Marty Garbus plan to show they > >know squat of what they rant -- as do most showboating > >piggish CEOs. > > > >Proskauer, Schumann and others are gulping fees of the > >ignorant titans, and couldn't be happier about the defense > >keeping the fight going and making it more complicated. > >This is case is one of many, they pray and raindance. > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 10:54:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA27185 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:54:40 -0400 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 KAA27182 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:54:39 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA09426 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:56:18 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:56:18 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Edward Hernstadt wrote: > happy birthday! Now, you see everyone.. the defense team really *does* care. :) sp > > >>> sparky 06/09/00 09:54AM >>> > > > On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > > At 06:16 AM 6/9/00 -0400, John Young wrote: > > >Eric wrote: > > > >Are the defense attorneys still following the list? Is > > > >anyone in contact with them to ask? Wendy? I'd be happy to send a polite > > > >inquiry asking if a little "white paper" from the list would be welcome, > > > >otherwise. > > > > John says it better than I could. I think a white paper summarizing the > > list's responses would be very helpful and much appreciated. > > Meanwhile I am working on updating what I have up at my website, based on > the VOLUMINOUS responses made so far. Usually there is not much activity > here over the weekend, but I will try to get the most debated answers up > tonight, specifically targeting the Seven Minute Miracle statement and the > statement against Matt's decl. > > It's my birthday everyone. happy birthday! > > sparky "old enough to repay, young enough to sell" > > > > > > --Wendy > > > > >In case Wendy misses this question: Yes, the defense team > > >will welcome input for demolition of the Schumann declaration. > > >It was quickly transcribed and put up for that purpose. The plaintiffs > > >have mounted a strong counterattack of which the declaration is > > >a part -- more of the fat filing will go up shortly. > > > > > >Proskauer is a huge firm, far larger than Frankfurt Garbus, I believe. > > >It has around the world buildings packed with lawyers hungry for fees, > > >and MPAA has bottomless pockets thanks to its global market. This > > >is a fight they want, and are willing to keep it up indefinitely, using > > >multiple platforms: court, congress, the media, lush contracts to > > >consultants, lobbiests, lawyers, journalists, pr-firms, spies and rats, > > >hackers paid to illegally copy using DeCSS and brag about it, all > > >the usual tools of corporate war and commerce. > > > > > >Against that usual way of doing business -- and remember the > > >purpose is to maximize profits by screwing customers, employees > > >and creative artists (even while proclaiming corporate venality > > >favors those interests) -- any contribution which genuinely > > >boosts corporate vicitims' interest will be of help. > > > > > >What drives the corporate titans and their sucklings nuts is > > >anti-hierarchy, the loss of iron-hand control. Without control > > >they cannot assure their own wildly disproportionate reward > > >at the expense of those who create and sustain valuable > > >products. That's why Valenti, Eisner, Bronfman and the > > >like are hysterically ranting to the press, and trying their > > >damndest to avoid Marty Garbus plan to show they > > >know squat of what they rant -- as do most showboating > > >piggish CEOs. > > > > > >Proskauer, Schumann and others are gulping fees of the > > >ignorant titans, and couldn't be happier about the defense > > >keeping the fight going and making it more complicated. > > >This is case is one of many, they pray and raindance. > > > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 12:27:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28417 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:27:22 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28414 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:27:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e59GT0a16239 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:29:01 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:29:00 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000607131253.A24204@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 Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: >OK, then, what about that college dorm? A fun little note: doing local transfers is limited in the amount of damage it can do to copyright. Doing WAN transfers means that somebody's paying the tariff (remember, at WAN egress, nobody is stupid enough to charge a flat rate because the continuous enhancement to core routers/fibre causes costs to ripple down to the egress) - here in Finland I believe it's something like 600FIM (which is close to $100) per gig transferred, dropping into the 300-500FIM (~$50) range with enough bits moving around. Do you suppose that anybody is willing to pay for that thru extensive periods of intensive infringement? Especially colleges? So even if it were possible to move the bits with speed, the costs would sooner or later ripple down to the copier and amount to a lot more than the worth of the original DVD. Do you suppose this situation would go on for long? (Cue in the old joke about bandwagons full of magnetic tape... ;) Notice also that the price of transmitting a given amount of data falls, but not nearly as rapidly as the common transfer speeds rise. >Let's face it, if a dorm really has a 100mbps hub connecting me to the guy >next door, I could probably share a 5GB movie file with him, assuming the >sysadmins aren't monitoring the amount of traffic I send locally. OK, it >wouldn't take 2 minutes, but it would be a fairly short time, and even 20 >minutes would be good enough to make his argument. > >Is there a way to defeat his argument here? In RS's scenario (with DIVX to shorten download, fast college dorm file sharing etc.) the amount of people sharing the stuff will be small. College students do not have an unlimited amount of money, or they would be paying for their connectivity with hard cash (see above for feasibility). Hence a limited total number of DVD's bought to distribute. Factor in the cost of storing the material. Then think about whether these same people /would/ buy all the movies they get to watch by sharing. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that free sharing with classmates implies a willingness to pay hard cash for the DVD. Everybody knows that if digital sharing is made impossible, it means that the people /will/ lend the originals and/or watch the tapes at the same time. This happens simply because LAN reaches are so small that practically all the people operating within a sufficiently high bandwidth cloud can more or less know each other. Further think about the motives behind sharing movies with your dorm mates - don't you think the same motives cause the sharers to buy /more/ DVD's into the limited pool to be shared, rather than diminish honest buys? After all, it's not uncommon to pool money to buy a good movie if people expect to see each other every now and then, or to go without the movie if the cost cannot be shared. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 12:33:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28532 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:33:59 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28529 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:33:58 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA10953 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:35:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:35:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile transfer over various network installations 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 Transfer times for a 1.5 Gb file over various network topologies, part I: Method used: anon ftp File used: 1.5Gb (1610612736 bytes) non-random binary data (RedHat 6.2 installation CD image, concatenated several times and truncated to exact length) Trial 1: via the internet (thanks, Sparky!); download target has a T1 (via exodus.net) connection to NE backbone, download source has several T1's combined for a 12Mb/s pipe (via cw.net) to NE backbone. (author's note: these are nextdoor-neighbors in terms of Internet topology. There are 12 hops between them and average ping time between the hosts is 27.0 milliseconds with 0% packet loss.) Time to download 1.5Gb: 466 minutes (7 hours, 46 minutes.) Extrapolation to 5.5Gb: 1709 minutes (28 hours, 29 minutes). Trial 2: via local high-speed (100Mb/s) switched ethernet: download target and source are separated by one switch; both are connected to that switch via 100Mb full-duplex fast-ethernet. It should be noted that both machines use SCSI subsystems; the source has a single SCSI adapter running at 40 Mb/s sustained transfer rate and the target has a hardware RAID5 array with a sustained transfer rate of 80 Mb/s. (Author's note: these are *not* commodity-grade systems. They are high-end research workstations on a state-of-the-art switched LAN.) Time to download 1.5Gb: 13 minutes 6 seconds. Extrapolation to 5.5Gb: 48 minutes 20 seconds. conclusion: Decl. of Robert Schumann contains figures unsupportable in any kind of real-world situation. -- Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 12:45:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28622 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:45:24 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28619 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:45:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e59Gl3t17688 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:47:03 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:47:02 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <393ECBEB.E81A388B@uic.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, 7 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: >Besides, the existance of programs like divx really, really hurts this >argument. Actually it doesn't, much. It's quite clear to me that anybody willing to watch movies on an at most 21 inch monitor with DIVX quality and no surround sound (meaning video, which is readily copiable, is in most cases far more enjoyable), will not be buying the DVD even if he cannot obtain it otherwise. The only problem with digital is that perfect copies are doable. This isn't perfect copying. This is a case of DMCA protections overshooting. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 13:00:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28805 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:00:33 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28802 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:00:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e59H2DD18488 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:02:13 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:02:13 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines In-Reply-To: <20000608100151.C28300@inka.de> 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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Sham Gardner wrote: >> But Garbus filed papers with the court saying that providing links to >> DeCSS should work to the legal disadvantage of plaintiffs. So this >> means that, if plaintiffs believe the defense attorney, they will have >> an incentive to prevent search engines from returning accurate results >> to a search for "DeCSS". I think that would be a very undesirable >> outcome. > >And if they did that, they would attract more negative publicity. Especially after the big mergers in the content production business that have been happening over the past few years. This would be a prime feast for some investigative journalist on how large conglomerates control the public's image about sensitive topics. And by the way, there are sections of these companies which are really difficult to control because of journalistic reasons. Think about what it takes of Time Magazine to keep up its street cred if Warner goes on to censor its affiliate net sites? Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 14:13:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29725 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:13:18 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29722 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:13:16 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA13659 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:14:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:14:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Slight OT [was: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines] 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 06/09/00 at 20:02, 'twas brillig and Sampo A Syreeni scrobe: > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Sham Gardner wrote: > > >> But Garbus filed papers with the court saying that providing links to > >> DeCSS should work to the legal disadvantage of plaintiffs. So this > >> means that, if plaintiffs believe the defense attorney, they will have > >> an incentive to prevent search engines from returning accurate results > >> to a search for "DeCSS". I think that would be a very undesirable > >> outcome. > > > >And if they did that, they would attract more negative publicity. > > Especially after the big mergers in the content production business that > have been happening over the past few years. This would be a prime feast for > some investigative journalist on how large conglomerates control the > public's image about sensitive topics. [...] Mm. At the risk of sounding paranoid and conspiracy-minded... Where do you suggest our intrepid journalist should publish? And what's to say such stories haven't been run, and discounted by the general populace because publications that are independent enough to run such a piece are also looked upon as somehow less "legitimate" than e.g. Time Magazine or the New York Times, precisely because they don't have backing from a multinational media giant? For interesting reading, see e.g. http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/time-warner.html, or anything else on the FAIR site for that matter. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 14:38:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA30126 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:38:49 -0400 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA30123 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:38:48 -0400 Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:39:58 -0700 Received: from pchecker (pchecker.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.254.128]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 35-62055U1500L100S0V35) with SMTP id gov for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:39:55 -0700 Message-Id: <4.1.20000609112048.00a34ba0@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: richard_hecker@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:43:58 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Richard A. Hecker" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile transfer over various networkinstallations 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 http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg03517.html Trial 1 >Time to download 1.5Gb: 466 minutes (7 hours, 46 minutes.) >Extrapolation to 5.5Gb: 1709 minutes (28 hours, 29 minutes). Trial 2 >Time to download 1.5Gb: 13 minutes 6 seconds. >Extrapolation to 5.5Gb: 48 minutes 20 seconds. Thanks for some more valid data. I would suggest also adding the traceroute output and a time stamp for completeness. >conclusion: Decl. of Robert Schumann contains figures unsupportable in >any kind of real-world situation. Besides my previous conclusions (His claim is ludicrous; He assumes a pathological case that does not exist; He is playing spec games; etc...), I would add that his claim in item 11 , "any single transmission to a single student on a college campus will then suffice as a ready source for proliferation throughout that entire community", can equally be challenged since he uses such faultly logic. I hope the White Paper is capturing all these details. Is there a URL to view the progress thus far? Richard From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 14:52:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA30267 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:52:11 -0400 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 OAA30264 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:52:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA09730 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:53:40 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:53:27 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile transfer over various networkinstallations In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000609112048.00a34ba0@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> 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 hope the White Paper is capturing all these details. Is there a URL to > view the > progress thus far? > > Richard > There is indeed: http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm This is the very first draft and only deals with the first few questions. i will be going over the extensive comments on this thread and put them in tonight, as much as I am able. Just so everyone understands, that too will be a draft, and format considerations will be bottom-most in my mind. Not saying it'll be a total mess, just that undoubtedly there will be streamlinings made to it. sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 15:08:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30454 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:08:03 -0400 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 PAA30451 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:08:02 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA03272 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:09:43 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:09:43 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Wired on downloaders' demographics Message-ID: <20000609140943.A3262@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 1.0.1us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu An interesting article appeared on Wired today: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,36875,00.html that talks about a survey, which says, among other things that the majority of those downloading music are _not_ college students. How timely is that? links to the full report are in the article. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 15:09:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30612 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:09:05 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30609 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:09:04 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA15389 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:10:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:10:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile transfer over various network installations In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000609112048.00a34ba0@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> 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 06/09/00 at 11:43, 'twas brillig and Richard A. Hecker scrobe: > > Thanks for some more valid data. I would suggest also adding the > traceroute output Traceroutes between my two machines are meaningless, and traceroutes from my machine to the one Sparky used fail for me at a router in between which is most likely dropping ICMP echoes. Sparky, could you try running traceroute in the following manner? Open a command prompt window, and type "tracert hex.cs.umass.edu" Cut&paste the output. > and a time stamp for completeness. Sparky used an NT ftp client, so I don't know what he's[1] got for timing information. I used GNU time and wget, with the following output (wall clock is the important figure, I've set it out with newlines and ***): time --verbose wget -q ftp://hex.cs.umass.edu/pub/bigfile.foo Command being timed: "wget -q ftp://hex.cs.umass.edu/pub/bigfile.foo" User time (seconds): 7.81 System time (seconds): 73.10 Percent of CPU this job got: 28% *** Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 13:06.28 Average shared text size (kbytes): 0 Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0 Average stack size (kbytes): 0 Average total size (kbytes): 0 Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 0 Average resident set size (kbytes): 0 Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 162 Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 23 Voluntary context switches: 0 Involuntary context switches: 0 Swaps: 0 File system inputs: 0 File system outputs: 0 Socket messages sent: 0 Socket messages received: 0 Signals delivered: 0 Page size (bytes): 4096 Exit status: 0 Ole [1] I just realized I'm assuming here -- Sparky, are you a he? -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 15:21:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30709 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:21:35 -0400 Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30706 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:21:28 -0400 Received: from jst.cyberpass.net (1Cust9.tnt4.lax1.da.uu.net [63.20.61.9]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14374 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000609121927.00a9cef0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:23:53 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Wired on downloaders' demographics In-Reply-To: <20000609140943.A3262@thud.reric.net> 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 02:09 PM 06/09/2000 -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: >An interesting article appeared on Wired today: > >http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,36875,00.html > >that talks about a survey, which says, among other things that the >majority of those downloading music are _not_ college students. Not really surprising. Someone (Paul?) posted stats a few days ago on the percentage of college students in the population, and IIRC, it was a single digit number. It would be difficult (though not impossible) for less than 10% of the population to be a majority of downloaders. The article puts students at 37%, well out of proportion to their % of the populous. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 16:08:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31332 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:08:27 -0400 Received: from cvex1.classifiedventures.com (outbound.classifiedventures.com [216.33.87.90]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA31329 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:08:26 -0400 Received: by cvex1.classifiedventures.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:11:51 -0500 Message-ID: <96932FC4DB21D411B7F90008C7E9C6E94258CE@cvex1.classifiedventures.com> From: "Standish, Sean" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] traceroute from sparky Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:11:50 -0500 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 tracing route to hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <10ms <10ms <10ms 172.16.38.1 2 <10ms <10ms <10ms 172.16.1.2 3 <10ms <10ms <10ms cvextrt1-fe0.classifiedventures.com [172.18.254.1] 4 10ms <10ms <10ms cvexort2-hs4-0.classifiedventures.com [172.18.1.2] 5 10ms <10ms <10ms 172.25.250.2 6 10ms 10ms <10ms exort1-fe4-0.classifiedventures.com [216.33.87.82] 7 <10ms 10ms 10ms 216.33.87.66 8 10ms <10ms 10ms dcr03-g2-0.okbr01.exodus.net [216.33.64.177] 9 10ms <10ms <10ms ibr02-g4-0.okbr01.exodus.net [216.34.183.67] 10 <10ms 10ms 10ms cw-px.exodus.net [216.32.132.182] 11 10ms 10ms 10ms corerouter1.willowsprings.cw.net [204.70.9.135] 12 30ms 30ms 30ms xcore4.boston.cw.net [204.70.150.89] 13 30ms 30ms 30ms cwusa-mci-worldcom.boston.cw.net [204.70.179.122] 14 30mw 30ms 30ms lgrc-rt-106-8-999.gw.umass.edu [128.119.3.238] 15 30ms 30ms 30ms cs-gw-ext-i1.cs.umass.edu [128.119.3.153] 16 40ms 30ms 20ms hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169] Trace complete. "1. The 'Muggles' in Ms. Stouffer's book are described as tiny, hairless creatures who live on the continent of Aura in a post-nuclear holocaust world set hundreds of years in the future." -Edward Rosenthal of Frankfurt, Garbus, Klein & Selz, P.C., "Declaration of Edward Rosenthal In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion To Disqualify" http://64.26.11.169 http://64.26.11.169/subterranean From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 17:27:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31804 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:27:09 -0400 Received: from dial104.roadrunner.com (dial104.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.104] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31801 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:27:07 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial104.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01765 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:29:30 -0600 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:29:30 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Wired on downloaders' demographics Message-ID: <20000609152929.A1640@localhost> References: <20000609140943.A3262@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000609140943.A3262@thud.reric.net>; from eds@reric.net on Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 02:09:43PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 02:09:43PM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > An interesting article appeared on Wired today: > > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,36875,00.html > > that talks about a survey, which says, among other things that the > majority of those downloading music are _not_ college students. > > How timely is that? > > links to the full report are in the article. >From the Wired article: "We did go back to a sample of the freeloaders we had interviewed (and found) that one of the trends was that people used Napster and Gnutella to sample music and to find new music," said Lenhart. "We also found that as a trend ... people are going out and purchasing the music they've downloaded." The report proper: Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 17:52:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA32075 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:52:41 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA32072 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:52:41 -0400 Received: from 209-122-249-65.s573.tnt8.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([209.122.249.65]) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 130WjN-0000IU-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:54:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:53:56 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Jeremy Erwin Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile transfer over various network installations 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 > >Trial 2: via local high-speed (100Mb/s) switched ethernet: download >target and source are separated by one switch; both are connected to >that switch via 100Mb full-duplex fast-ethernet. It should be noted >that both machines use SCSI subsystems; the source has a single SCSI >adapter running at 40 Mb/s sustained transfer rate and the target has >a hardware RAID5 array with a sustained transfer rate of 80 Mb/s. >(Author's note: these are *not* commodity-grade systems. They are >high-end research workstations on a state-of-the-art switched LAN.) A quibble, but in this case, I think it's necessary: A Megabyte (usually abbreviated MB) is eight times larger than a Megabit (usually abbreviated Mb). Internet connection speeds are usually quoted in Megabits per second (Mb/s), and hard disc interface speed are usually quoted in Megabytes per second (MB/s). So (very theoretically), the network cards should be rated at 100 Mb/s, and the SCSI Raid should run at 80 MB/s (640 Mb/s). And that 1.5 Gb file should really be 1.5 GB. (I think...) Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 18:02:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32353 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:02:41 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32350 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:02:40 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA20428 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:04:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:04:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile transfer over various network installations 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 06/09/00 at 17:53, 'twas brillig and Jeremy Erwin scrobe: > Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:53:56 -0400 > From: Jeremy Erwin > Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile transfer over > various network installations > > > > >Trial 2: via local high-speed (100Mb/s) switched ethernet: download > >target and source are separated by one switch; both are connected to > >that switch via 100Mb full-duplex fast-ethernet. It should be noted > >that both machines use SCSI subsystems; the source has a single SCSI > >adapter running at 40 Mb/s sustained transfer rate and the target has > >a hardware RAID5 array with a sustained transfer rate of 80 Mb/s. > >(Author's note: these are *not* commodity-grade systems. They are > >high-end research workstations on a state-of-the-art switched LAN.) > > A quibble, but in this case, I think it's necessary: > > A Megabyte (usually abbreviated MB) is eight times larger than a > Megabit (usually abbreviated Mb). Internet connection speeds are > usually quoted in Megabits per second (Mb/s), and hard disc interface > speed are usually quoted in Megabytes per second (MB/s). So (very > theoretically), the network cards should be rated at 100 Mb/s, and > the SCSI Raid should run at 80 MB/s (640 Mb/s). You are absolutely correct, and I apologize for my lazy pinky, who must've been shirking his shift whilst I was typing. :-) > And that 1.5 Gb file should really be 1.5 GB. Yup. (And, in case anyone cares -- it is truly 1.5 times 2 to the 30th, not 1,500,000,000.) Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 18:04:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32485 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:04:49 -0400 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32482 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:04:48 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inig51.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.64.161]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA30463 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 18:06:28 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 In-Reply-To: <004001bfd201$34e534e0$a5202640@winuser> 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 Here's a 200+ page deposition of Robert Schumann on May 15, which amplifies -- and how! -- his all-too-pat declaration of June 1. http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rsd.htm (317K) Some parts are excised as confidential -- Proskauer had attempted make the whole wad attorneys eyes only, saying "I don't want to wake up and see this transcript in the newspaper tomorrow, and I have reasons to believe that that is a possibility." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 18:08:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32659 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:08:42 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32655 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:08:41 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id SAA28475 for ; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 18:12:46 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 18:06:24 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 18:06:08 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: , Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id SAA32656 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu For the record, the portions designated "Confidential" are deleted in the posted version of the deposition. >>> John Young 06/09/00 06:06PM >>> Here's a 200+ page deposition of Robert Schumann on May 15, which amplifies -- and how! -- his all-too-pat declaration of June 1. http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rsd.htm (317K) Some parts are excised as confidential -- Proskauer had attempted make the whole wad attorneys eyes only, saying "I don't want to wake up and see this transcript in the newspaper tomorrow, and I have reasons to believe that that is a possibility." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 18:37:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00482 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:37:02 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00479 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:37:01 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 130XQJ-0003EY-00; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 15:38:43 -0700 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:38:43 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Message-ID: <20000609153843.V2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <004001bfd201$34e534e0$a5202640@winuser> <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 06:06:28PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Young writes: > Here's a 200+ page deposition of Robert Schumann on May 15, > which amplifies -- and how! -- his all-too-pat declaration of > June 1. > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rsd.htm (317K) > > Some parts are excised as confidential -- Proskauer had attempted > make the whole wad attorneys eyes only, saying "I don't want > to wake up and see this transcript in the newspaper tomorrow, > and I have reasons to believe that that is a possibility." The defense attorneys have made some minor technical errors. Would they have time to take a look through some concise technical commentary to improve their understanding of some of the technical points? -- 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 Jun 9 19:38:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA00873 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:38:34 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA00870 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:38:33 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:40:42 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C27@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile transfer over v arious network installations Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:40:40 -0700 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 Better yet, for clarity we should just avoid the abbreviations when discussing the speeds & sizes here. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Erwin [mailto:jerwin@gmu.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 2:54 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile > transfer over > various network installations > > > > > >Trial 2: via local high-speed (100Mb/s) switched ethernet: download > >target and source are separated by one switch; both are connected to > >that switch via 100Mb full-duplex fast-ethernet. It should be noted > >that both machines use SCSI subsystems; the source has a single SCSI > >adapter running at 40 Mb/s sustained transfer rate and the target has > >a hardware RAID5 array with a sustained transfer rate of 80 Mb/s. > >(Author's note: these are *not* commodity-grade systems. They are > >high-end research workstations on a state-of-the-art switched LAN.) > > A quibble, but in this case, I think it's necessary: > > A Megabyte (usually abbreviated MB) is eight times larger than a > Megabit (usually abbreviated Mb). Internet connection speeds are > usually quoted in Megabits per second (Mb/s), and hard disc interface > speed are usually quoted in Megabytes per second (MB/s). So (very > theoretically), the network cards should be rated at 100 Mb/s, and > the SCSI Raid should run at 80 MB/s (640 Mb/s). > > And that 1.5 Gb file should really be 1.5 GB. > > (I think...) > Jeremy > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 19:45:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01033 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:45:28 -0400 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 TAA01030 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:45:27 -0400 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 TAA20070 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000609192333.00b78dc0@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:47:07 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 In-Reply-To: <20000609153843.V2589@zork.net> References: <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <004001bfd201$34e534e0$a5202640@winuser> <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net> 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 03:38 PM 6/9/00 -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: >The defense attorneys have made some minor technical errors. Would >they have time to take a look through some concise technical >commentary to improve their understanding of some of the technical >points? The defense team would certainly appreciate your corrections and technical suggestions. I will try to pass them along in lower-volume doses! (after I use the weekend to do some catching up myself, that is) Any suggestions of technical experts would also be welcome, I imagine. In addition, I should again pass along the Garbus team's thanks for the amicus brief on which so many of you helped. Thanks! --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 20:10:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA01396 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:10:41 -0400 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 UAA01393 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:10:40 -0400 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 RAA09580 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:10:06 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03108; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:09:19 -0700 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: [dvd-discuss] Schumann's deposition Date: 9 Jun 2000 17:08:12 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 26 Message-ID: <8hs0tc$312$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is probably unimportant, but: Schumann's second declaration states that he used DeCSS to decrypt a DVD disk, stored the result on his hard drive, and was able to play the unencrypted files using commercial DVD software: 13. Defendants contend that the use of DeCSS in connection with such Internet piracy of movies is impractical, if not impossible. Thus, in paragraph 10 of Matt Pavlovich's Declaration, there is a statement to the effect that "[a]ny effort to simply play the unencrypted content stored on a harddisc or other large medium would be futile, due to the fact that there is no known player that can play from anything but a DVD disc." This is wrong. Using DeCSS I copied and decrypted all of the files from the movie "You've Got Mail" to the hard drive of a new Windows 98-based PC. After the copying was complete. I attempted to play back the decrypted movie from the files on the hard drive using a variety of commercial DVD software. All of the packages used allowed me to view the basic movie content [...] In his deposition, Schumann states that he used DeCSS to decrypt a DVD movie, stored the result on his hard drive, and then didn't play the unencrypted files. He states that he believes "there is no reason why the resulted [sic] decrypted files will not play", but he did not actually try to play it. See page 89 lines 20--21 and page 90 lines 16--18 and thereabouts. How should I reconcile these two statements? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 20:21:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA01542 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:21:07 -0400 Received: from mrs-1.smartworld.net (mrs-1-fix.smartworld.net [216.70.64.24]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA01539 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:21:06 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-395.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.33.141]) by mrs-1.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA27661 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001401bfd272$049f0ba0$9635fea9@oemcomputer> From: "freewwweb" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:22:18 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > And 1201 itself, no? I mean the section where it says that these clauses > shall have no effect on the current state of fair use etc. (distractedly tangled in a statutory web...) Unfortunately, Congress feels that those exceptions only apply to ONE of the three anticircumvention provisions (which are 1201(a)(1) [you can't circumvent access ever], 1201(a)(2) [you can't traffick in devices or technology which circumvent ever], and 1201(b) [you can't circumvent access protecting a right of the copyright holder, double ever]). Ten points if you can guess which provisions it doesn't apply to. Ten more points if you can guess which provision is unconstitutional. Bonus points if you guess which provision was added in case a court discovered what the lobbyists knew when they wrote the provision--that the other one was unconstitutional. The only reason to make the three provisions so technical and make them pervasively overlap is to obfuscate the statutory construction and constitutional problems with part of 1201, if interpreted as the MPAA wishes. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 20:26:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA01692 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:26:43 -0400 Received: from mrs-1.smartworld.net (mrs-1-fix.smartworld.net [216.70.64.24]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA01689 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:26:42 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-395.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.33.141]) by mrs-1.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA96166 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:28:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002301bfd272$cd13e100$9635fea9@oemcomputer> From: "freewwweb" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:28:27 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > journalistic reasons. Think about what it takes of Time Magazine to keep > up its street cred if Warner goes on to censor its affiliate net sites? Speaking of which, even Time-Warner-Turner-AOL has an --INTENTIONAL-- link to 2600.com, in one of CNN's early stories about DeCSS. I've saved a copy of the page in case its removed... http://www.cnn.com/1999/TECH/ptech/12/28/dvd.crack/index.html They also have a link to dibona.com Both dibona.com and 2600.com have obvious links to other DeCSS sites. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 20:27:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA01774 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:27:31 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA01771 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:27:30 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 130Z9F-0003Th-00; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 17:29:13 -0700 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:29:13 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Schumann's deposition Message-ID: <20000609172913.Y2589@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <8hs0tc$312$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <8hs0tc$312$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from daw@cs.berkeley.edu on Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 05:08:12PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu David A. Wagner writes: > This is probably unimportant, but: > > Schumann's second declaration states that he used DeCSS to decrypt > a DVD disk, stored the result on his hard drive, and was able to > play the unencrypted files using commercial DVD software: > 13. Defendants contend that the use of DeCSS in connection with such > Internet piracy of movies is impractical, if not impossible. Thus, in > paragraph 10 of Matt Pavlovich's Declaration, there is a statement to > the effect that "[a]ny effort to simply play the unencrypted content > stored on a harddisc or other large medium would be futile, due to the > fact that there is no known player that can play from anything but a > DVD disc." This is wrong. Using DeCSS I copied and decrypted all of > the files from the movie "You've Got Mail" to the hard drive of a new > Windows 98-based PC. After the copying was complete. I attempted to > play back the decrypted movie from the files on the hard drive using a > variety of commercial DVD software. All of the packages used allowed > me to view the basic movie content [...] > > In his deposition, Schumann states that he used DeCSS to decrypt > a DVD movie, stored the result on his hard drive, and then didn't > play the unencrypted files. He states that he believes "there is > no reason why the resulted [sic] decrypted files will not play", > but he did not actually try to play it. See page 89 lines 20--21 > and page 90 lines 16--18 and thereabouts. > > How should I reconcile these two statements? That deposition was taken almost a month ago. Maybe he used the questions (a la Purity Test) as a list of things he might try. Or maybe he was just filled with a desire to help me complete my "dvdtable.html" web page. -- 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 Jun 9 20:27:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA01782 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:27:37 -0400 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 UAA01779 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:27:36 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id TAA04342 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:29:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:29:18 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Schumann's deposition Message-ID: <20000609192918.A4326@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <8hs0tc$312$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <8hs0tc$312$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from daw@cs.berkeley.edu on Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 05:08:12PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 05:08:12PM -0700, David A. Wagner wrote: > This is probably unimportant, but: > > Schumann's second declaration states that he used DeCSS to decrypt > a DVD disk, stored the result on his hard drive, and was able to > play the unencrypted files using commercial DVD software: > 13. Defendants contend that the use of DeCSS in connection with such > Internet piracy of movies is impractical, if not impossible. Thus, in > paragraph 10 of Matt Pavlovich's Declaration, there is a statement to > the effect that "[a]ny effort to simply play the unencrypted content > stored on a harddisc or other large medium would be futile, due to the > fact that there is no known player that can play from anything but a > DVD disc." This is wrong. Using DeCSS I copied and decrypted all of > the files from the movie "You've Got Mail" to the hard drive of a new > Windows 98-based PC. After the copying was complete. I attempted to > play back the decrypted movie from the files on the hard drive using a > variety of commercial DVD software. All of the packages used allowed > me to view the basic movie content [...] > > In his deposition, Schumann states that he used DeCSS to decrypt > a DVD movie, stored the result on his hard drive, and then didn't > play the unencrypted files. He states that he believes "there is > no reason why the resulted [sic] decrypted files will not play", > but he did not actually try to play it. See page 89 lines 20--21 > and page 90 lines 16--18 and thereabouts. > > How should I reconcile these two statements? It's possible that he actually went and did the test between May 15, when the deposition was taken, and June 1, when the second declaration was dated. Not difficult to believe given the number of times Garbus grills him about it. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 20:50:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA01975 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:50:26 -0400 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 UAA01972 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:50:25 -0400 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 RAA09754 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:49:51 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03217; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:49:05 -0700 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] Schumann's deposition Date: 9 Jun 2000 17:47:59 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 7 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8hs37v$34e$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <8hs0tc$312$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000609192918.A4326@thud.reric.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000609192918.A4326@thud.reric.net>, Eric Seppanen wrote: > It's possible that he actually went and did the test between May 15, when > the deposition was taken, and June 1, when the second declaration was > dated. Ahh, there's my mistake: I overlooked the date of the deposition. Thanks. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 20:51:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02065 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:51:55 -0400 Received: from mrs-1.smartworld.net (mrs-1-fix.smartworld.net [216.70.64.24]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02061 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:51:54 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-395.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.33.141]) by mrs-1.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA29194 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008001bfd276$5232d460$9635fea9@oemcomputer> From: "freewwweb" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] correction Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:53:32 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In my haste to reply, I misread the statute. I apologize if this is repetitive for some. > > And 1201 itself, no? I mean the section where it says that these clauses > > shall have no effect on the current state of fair use etc. 1201(a)(1) does indeed bar actual circumvention of access controls on a copyrighted work (regardless of scope) 1201(a)(2) is the anti trafficking provision on access controls which protect a copyrighted work (regardless of scope) 1201(b) is another anti trafficking provision limited to access controls which protect rights of the copyrightholder 1201(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title. The MPAA interprets this as preserving defenses to copyright infringement, not creating defenses to access circumvention. I read it as a statutory construction key, which supports the defendant much more than the plaintiff. 1201(c)(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products. This is very interesting, in the context of the press linking motion, at minimum. > protecting a right of the copyright holder, double ever]). > > Ten points if you can guess which provisions it doesn't apply to. > > Ten more points if you can guess which provision is unconstitutional. > > Bonus points if you guess which provision was added in case a court > discovered what the lobbyists knew when they wrote the provision--that the > other one was unconstitutional. > > The only reason to make the three provisions so technical and make them > pervasively overlap is to obfuscate the statutory construction and > constitutional problems with part of 1201, if interpreted as the MPAA > wishes. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 9 22:49:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA02633 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:49:31 -0400 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 WAA02628 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:49:29 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA31466; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:51:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:51:09 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006100251.WAA31466@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile transfer over various network installations Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ole Craig wrote: >On 06/09/00 at 17:53, 'twas brillig and Jeremy Erwin scrobe: > >> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:53:56 -0400 >> From: Jeremy Erwin >> Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Speed trials for 1.5Gb datafile transfer over >> various network installations >> >> > >> >Trial 2: via local high-speed (100Mb/s) switched ethernet: download >> >target and source are separated by one switch; both are connected to >> >that switch via 100Mb full-duplex fast-ethernet. It should be noted >> >that both machines use SCSI subsystems; the source has a single SCSI >> >adapter running at 40 Mb/s sustained transfer rate and the target has >> >a hardware RAID5 array with a sustained transfer rate of 80 Mb/s. >> >(Author's note: these are *not* commodity-grade systems. They are >> >high-end research workstations on a state-of-the-art switched LAN.) >> >> A quibble, but in this case, I think it's necessary: >> >> A Megabyte (usually abbreviated MB) is eight times larger than a >> Megabit (usually abbreviated Mb). Internet connection speeds are >> usually quoted in Megabits per second (Mb/s), and hard disc interface >> speed are usually quoted in Megabytes per second (MB/s). So (very >> theoretically), the network cards should be rated at 100 Mb/s, and >> the SCSI Raid should run at 80 MB/s (640 Mb/s). > > You are absolutely correct, and I apologize for my lazy pinky, >who must've been shirking his shift whilst I was typing. :-) > > >> And that 1.5 Gb file should really be 1.5 GB. > > Yup. (And, in case anyone cares -- it is truly 1.5 times 2 to >the 30th, not 1,500,000,000.) > Actually to be rather picky (assuming it has been officially adopted) 1610612736 (1.5*1024^3) bytes should be written as 1.5GiB (Gibi-bytes) While 1.5GB (Giga-bytes) would be 1,500,000,000 bytes. See http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 02:20:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA03991 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:20:48 -0400 Received: from dial169.roadrunner.com (dial169.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.169] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA03988 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:20:46 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by dial169.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA02513 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:23:18 -0600 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:23:17 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p. 39, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Message-ID: <20000610002317.A2397@orange.fenimore.org> References: <004001bfd201$34e534e0$a5202640@winuser> <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 06:06:28PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu p. 39 20 A. It was infinite. "infinite" --> "indefinite"? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 02:38:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA04311 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:38:32 -0400 Received: from dial156.roadrunner.com (dial156.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.156] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA04308 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:38:30 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by dial156.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA02957 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:41:03 -0600 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:41:02 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p. 39, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Message-ID: <20000610004102.B2397@orange.fenimore.org> References: <004001bfd201$34e534e0$a5202640@winuser> <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000610002317.A2397@orange.fenimore.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000610002317.A2397@orange.fenimore.org>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 12:23:17AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 12:23:17AM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > p. 39 > 20 A. It was infinite. > > "infinite" --> "indefinite"? Never mind, now I get it. He's saying he didn't do the download. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 05:10:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA05504 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 05:10:56 -0400 Received: from dial152.roadrunner.com (dial152.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.152] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA05501 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 05:10:39 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by dial152.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA03421 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 03:13:13 -0600 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 03:13:12 -0600 From: root To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Message-ID: <20000610031312.C2397@orange.fenimore.org> References: <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <004001bfd201$34e534e0$a5202640@winuser> <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000609153843.V2589@zork.net> <4.2.2.20000609192333.00b78dc0@pop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000609192333.00b78dc0@pop.bellatlantic.net>; from wendy@seltzer.com on Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 07:47:07PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 83 1 Schumann 2 Q. Does DeCSS permit a consumer who has 3 purchased a DVD to fast-forward through sections of 4 a DVD that the manufacturer has prevented from 5 being fast-forwarded? The fast-forward prohibition is achieved throught the licensing of CSS, it is not a technical feature of CSS per se. This distinction between the technical feature of CSS proper and the technical features which are imposed by virtue of the licensing arrangements in clouded in this discussion. 6 A. DeCSS itself? 7 Q. That's my question. 8 A. No. 9 Q. Does DeCSS enable someone to use 10 with some other program, like a DVD player, to skip 11 the region code? 12 A. I think it is irrelevant to that 13 problem. Bzzzt. It is technically irrelevant, but it sure is legally relevant. 14 Q. You think DeCSS is irrelevant to 15 that problem? 16 A. To the problem of evading region 17 code? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. Yes. Again, only in a technical sense. Region coding does not require the application of a process or information [ §1201(a)(3) ], it requires the _testing_ of eight bits on the disk. Performance of that test is enforced by contractual obligation, not technical design. The design of CSS could have been such that each region would have its own set of player keys. Such an arrangement would have been a technological *enforcement* of region coding, probably pursuant to (a)(3) -- however I suspect that CSS and region coding were separated because of the possibility that region codes would be found an illegal restraint of trade (New Zealand?) meant that the technological measures needed to be kept separated. Once the measures are separated, the DVD-CCA/studios can shed region codes where they are illegal without affecting one their over-all goal of access control after first sale. 22 A. Yes, I have. 23 Q. In a Declaration if there is a 24 statement that says that DeCSS permits you to evade 25 region coding, a region coding limitation, then INTERIM COURT REPORTING 84 1 Schumann 2 that statement is incorrect? 3 MR. GOLD: I object to the form. 4 Q. You can answer the question. 5 A. In my professional opinion, DeCSS is 6 irrelevant to evading the region coding, in your 7 terminology. 8 Q. Why is that? 9 A. Because region coding is not part of 10 the DeCSS specification. This entirely misses the point. It is not whether region coding is part of the CSS spec, rather region coding is part of the CSS license [ caveat: these license are, so far as I know from examining the DVD-CCA web-site etc., non-public. Getting a look at these licenses might be very interesting. ] Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 09:22:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA06761 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:22:09 -0400 Received: from mrs-3.smartworld.net (mrs-3.smartworld.net [216.70.64.34]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA06758 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:22:08 -0400 Received: from winuser (ppp-165.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.32.165]) by mrs-3.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA19255 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000a01bfd2de$bf58be20$a5202640@winuser> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <004001bfd201$34e534e0$a5202640@winuser> <200006092206.SAA30463@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000609153843.V2589@zork.net> <4.2.2.20000609192333.00b78dc0@pop.bellatlantic.net> <20000610031312.C2397@orange.fenimore.org> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:21:09 -0400 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 Actually Schumann's testimony undercuts their entire argument. RS says region coding and fast forwarding crippled functions are not part of the access control regime. If DeCSS's has functions irrelevant to access controls (enabling region coding or fast forwarding, allowing the user to do these things post decryption) then DeCSS has a substantial use besides merely circumventing access controls. Thus it can't be banned, especially since those nasty side effects (no fast forwarding, region controls) are not exclusive rights of the copyright holder, and are pretty close to antitrust bundling and horizontal market division. > 83 > > 1 Schumann > > 2 Q. Does DeCSS permit a consumer who has > > 3 purchased a DVD to fast-forward through sections of > > 4 a DVD that the manufacturer has prevented from > > 5 being fast-forwarded? > > The fast-forward prohibition is achieved throught the licensing of CSS, > it is not a technical feature of CSS per se. This distinction between > the technical feature of CSS proper and the technical features which are > imposed by virtue of the licensing arrangements in clouded in this > discussion. So, DeCSS has a function in overcoming the "technical features" caused by the license agreement between the MPAA and DVD manufacturers. The end user isn't a party to this license, and these "technical features" certaintly aren't access controls. > > 6 A. DeCSS itself? > > 7 Q. That's my question. > > 8 A. No. > > 9 Q. Does DeCSS enable someone to use > > 10 with some other program, like a DVD player, to skip > > 11 the region code? > > 12 A. I think it is irrelevant to that > > 13 problem. > > Bzzzt. It is technically irrelevant, but it sure is legally relevant. You betcha. ...snip... > 8 Q. Why is that? > > 9 A. Because region coding is not part of > > 10 the DeCSS specification. > > This entirely misses the point. It is not whether region coding is part > of the CSS spec, rather region coding is part of the CSS license [ caveat: > these license are, so far as I know from examining the DVD-CCA web-site > etc., non-public. Getting a look at these licenses might be very > interesting. ] > > Paul Fenimore If he meant region coding wasn't part of the DeCSS specification, then it still enables the user to do an end-run around region codes. If he meant region coding wasn't part of the CSS specification, then DeCSS has a substantial non-access-control circumvention use. Poof. -Doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 11:05:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07421 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:05:52 -0400 Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07418 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:05:51 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihh5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.70.37]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA03346 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006101507.LAA03346@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:06:52 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Filings of June 2 In-Reply-To: <20000609192918.A4326@thud.reric.net> References: <8hs0tc$312$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <8hs0tc$312$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.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 offer the MPAA law memos and declarations of June 2 of which Schumann's second declaration was a part: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm (163K) Contents Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the January 20, 2000 Order of Preliminary Injunction Reply Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Cross-Motion to Vacate the Preliminary Injunction Declarations in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify, and in Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motion to Vacate the Preliminary Injunction Robert Schumann Declaration (previously posted) Leon Gold Declaration Franklin Fisher Declaration Daphne Gronich Declaration John Hoy Declaration Bruce Boyden Declaration Exhibits From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 11:31:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07650 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:31:29 -0400 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 LAA07647 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:31:28 -0400 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA22741 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:33:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Filings of June 2 In-Reply-To: <200006101507.LAA03346@maynard.mail.mindspring.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 Sat, 10 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > We offer the MPAA law memos and declarations of June 2 > of which Schumann's second declaration was a part: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm (163K) > I found this to be somewhat troubling: " Submissions by Defendants Amounting to Improper Testimony on Law 6. I respectfully submit that several of the declarations defendants submitted in support of their cross motion to vacate the preliminary injunction should be stricken, in whole or in part, because they consist of testimony on law. (See Plaintiffs' Mem. In Opp. at 13, n.10.) Specifically, the following assertions, identified by declarant, page, and paragraph, consist of improper legal argument: Declaration of Martin Garbus, p.2 2, 3, and 4; p.4 9 and 10; p.5 12; p.7 21; Declaration of John Gilmore, pp.2-3 9; pp.4-6 12-14; p.7 19-20; pp.9-10 24-25; Declaration of Eben Moglen, p.2 3; Declaration of Matt Pavlovich, p.2 2; Declaration of Pamela Samuelson, pp.3-9 5, 7-16; Declaration of Bruce Schneier, p.3 8; Declaration of Barbara Simons, pp.3-7 6, 9, 14, 15, 17; Declaration of Frank Stevenson, p.9 29; Declaration of Dave Touretzky, pp.2-5 3, 6. " Declaration of Leon Gold, Paragraph 6 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 12:51:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08869 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:51:11 -0400 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 MAA08866 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:51:09 -0400 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 JAA16649 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (smb23@localhost) by lennon.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA25669 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:52:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve M Bibayoff To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 In-Reply-To: <000a01bfd2de$bf58be20$a5202640@winuser> 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 > > 8 Q. Why is that? > > > > 9 A. Because region coding is not part of > > > > 10 the DeCSS specification. > > > If he meant region coding wasn't part of the DeCSS specification, then it > still enables the user to do an end-run around region codes. If he meant > region coding wasn't part of the CSS specification, then DeCSS has a > substantial non-access-control circumvention use. Poof. What does he mean, if anybody knows, when he says "region coding is not part of the DeCSS specification" ? Does DeCSS have a specification? Could it be proved one way or the other? Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 13:27:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09150 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:27:32 -0400 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 NAA09147 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:27:31 -0400 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA08940 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:29:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:29:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 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, 10 Jun 2000, Steve M Bibayoff wrote: > > > > > 8 Q. Why is that? > > > > > > 9 A. Because region coding is not part of > > > > > > 10 the DeCSS specification. > > >> > > If he meant region coding wasn't part of the DeCSS specification, then it > > still enables the user to do an end-run around region codes. If he meant > > region coding wasn't part of the CSS specification, then DeCSS has a > > substantial non-access-control circumvention use. Poof. > > What does he mean, if anybody knows, when he says "region coding is not > part of the DeCSS specification" ? Does DeCSS have a specification? Could > it be proved one way or the other? I think he means the CSS specification. I rather doubt that DeCSS has formal specification-- apart from the source code. As for the CSS specification, I would not be at all surprised if such documents were "privileged" in some fashion. jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 15:27:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA09688 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:27:11 -0400 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 PAA09685 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:27:09 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-07.suba.com [206.69.121.199]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA10428 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:28:52 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] come on people now Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:28:21 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bfd312$09b6a4e0$c77945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I just put up the next draft of response to Schumann. As Blondie said, tear it to shreds. I did not rewrite the first section, though it clearly needs it in places. sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 16:40:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA10647 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:40:43 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA10644 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:40:42 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 130s5L-0004zE-00; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:42:27 -0700 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:42:27 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Message-ID: <20000610134227.B16156@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu on Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 01:29:16PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jeremy A Erwin writes: > As for the CSS specification, I would not be at all surprised if such > documents were "privileged" in some fashion. What, work product privilege? Wouldn't you have to hae an attorney working on it in order to have that privilege? -- 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 Sat Jun 10 17:29:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11417 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:29:05 -0400 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 RAA11414 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:29:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA00167 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:30:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:30:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 In-Reply-To: <20000610134227.B16156@zork.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 Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Jeremy A Erwin writes: > > > As for the CSS specification, I would not be at all surprised if such > > documents were "privileged" in some fashion. > > What, work product privilege? Wouldn't you have to hae an attorney > working on it in order to have that privilege? CSS is either an insecure cryptographic system, or it's a club to enforce a licence. If it's the former, the specification would necessarilly not include discussions re: region control, macrovison, commercial skip, etc, because such an implementaion has noting to do with implementing a coding scheme. If it's a liscence enforcement club, then all the documents dealing with "you must provide this level of security, this level of picture degradation, and this level of annoyance, in order to recieve a "player key-pair" " will almost certainly have been drawn up by lawyers, who might very well assert various privilages. I seem to recall reading an article that claimed the Ohio EPA worked in that very fashion, in order to shield the Governor's office from environmental activists. But I digress... Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 18:10:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA11839 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:10:00 -0400 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 SAA11836 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:09:58 -0400 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 PAA12803 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:09:26 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03746; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:08:38 -0700 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] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Date: 10 Jun 2000 15:07:32 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 8 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8hue74$3l1$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <000a01bfd2de$bf58be20$a5202640@winuser> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article , Steve M Bibayoff wrote: > What does he mean, if anybody knows, when he says "region coding is not > part of the DeCSS specification" ? I think he means the CSS specification. The folks at the deposition seem to confuse CSS and DeCSS at several points throughout the transcript, if I remember corectly. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 18:32:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA12010 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:32:17 -0400 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12007 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:32:16 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inigpn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.67.55]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA29529 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:34:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006102234.SAA29529@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:34:03 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 In-Reply-To: <20000610134227.B16156@zork.net> 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 I'm not sure what the "CSS specification" means, whether the scramble.txt code or the licensing agreement. In case it has not been mentioned here both scramble.txt and the CSS license agreement are exhibits to the John Hoy declaration in the California case, apparently intended to be sealed but mistakenly filed as public documents, then sealed when it was discovered they had been published on the Internet. These are the "trade secrets" of the CA case. Schumann refers to the "Amended and Restated CSS Interim License Agreement," which is Exhibit C of the Hoy Declaration: http://cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm#Exhibit C This once-confidential 33-page document describes in meticulous detail the conditions which licensees must meet to employ CSS in their products. Hoy, Schumann and other MPAA parties are careful not to mention in the New York filings that the agreement is public, due to the DVD CCA lawyers blunder. That's because it has been sealed in the California court -- though over 100,000 copies have been downloaded from around the world. It's probable that DVD CCA has help distribute far more copies of its vital trade secrets, CSS and the Agreement, than there are copies of DeCSS. There was talk of its attorneys being punished for the error but nothing seems to have come of it, at least not in public. No doubt it was hoped that the matter would disappear from public view, but it hasn't according to the logs of truth: there continues to far more downloads of the DVD CCA trade secrets than DeCSS from our site. Finally, there is probably a successor agreement to the interim agreement due to the publicity. Schumann's references may be a smokescreen. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 19:06:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA12273 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:06:55 -0400 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 TAA12270 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:06:54 -0400 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 TAA08199 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:08:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000610173510.023ffaf0@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:08:38 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 In-Reply-To: References: <20000610134227.B16156@zork.net> 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 Schumann & co. (see also the Hoy declaration responding to Matt Pavlovich) seem to be making obfuscated distinctions between the CSS spec and the CSS license package -- the package being the set of agreements a player manufacturer must enter into in order to sell a player compatible with the CSS spec. There may be a smaller subset of agreements one has to sign even to see the CSS spec without implementing it. Since users of a licensed DVD player are bound not only by CSS but also by other restrictions required by the license package, whereas users of DeCSS are limited by neither, I like the suggestion (Doug's and Paul's) that avoiding the non access-control restrictions of the licensing package is a non-circumvention use of DeCSS. The CSS license package is unlikely to be under an attorney privilege, though plaintiffs probably try to shield it as a trade secret (and even that sounds shaky for a set of anticompetitive contracts). (Attorney-client privilege is limited to documents that are not disclosed outside of the attorney-client relationship, but these were shared at least with every licensor, even if prepared by attorneys for the DVDCCA. Attorney work-product privilege applies to documents containing the "mental impressions" of the attorney generated in preparation for litigation.) I want to see those agreements... At 05:30 PM 6/10/00 -0400, Jeremy A Erwin wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > Jeremy A Erwin writes: > > > > > As for the CSS specification, I would not be at all surprised if such > > > documents were "privileged" in some fashion. > > > > What, work product privilege? Wouldn't you have to hae an attorney > > working on it in order to have that privilege? >CSS is either an insecure cryptographic system, or it's a club to enforce >a licence. If it's the former, the specification would necessarilly not >include discussions re: region control, macrovison, commercial skip, etc, >because such an implementaion has noting to do with implementing a coding >scheme. >If it's a liscence enforcement club, then all the documents dealing with >"you must provide this level of security, this level of picture >degradation, and this level of annoyance, in order to recieve a "player >key-pair" " will almost certainly have been drawn up by lawyers, who might >very well assert various privilages. > >I seem to recall reading an article that claimed the Ohio EPA worked in >that very fashion, in order to shield the Governor's office from >environmental activists. But I digress... > >Jeremy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 19:38:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA12489 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:38:20 -0400 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 TAA12486 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:38:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA22820 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:40:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:40:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000610173510.023ffaf0@pop.bellatlantic.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 Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > I want to see those agreements... The Ammended and Restated CSS Interim Licence Agreement makes reference to Section 6.2 of the CSS Procedural Specifications. "For purposes of this definition, authorized outputs and methods hereunder are those compliant with requirements contained in Section 6.2 of the CSS Procedural Specifications, including any upgrades or modifications thereto. By way of example and not limitation, the following CSS Compliant Products, if so configured, would be considered to be Protected: [lists sabatoged devices] " Obviously the CSS Procedural Specifications contains a lot more than the CSS algorithms. Unfortunately, the document is shielded as "highly confidential." Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 20:20:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA12840 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:20:19 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA12837 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:20:17 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 130vVq-0005Hf-00; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:22:02 -0700 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:22:02 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Filings of June 2 Message-ID: <20000610172202.E16156@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <8hs0tc$312$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <8hs0tc$312$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000609192918.A4326@thud.reric.net> <200006101507.LAA03346@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006101507.LAA03346@maynard.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:06:52AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Young writes: > We offer the MPAA law memos and declarations of June 2 > of which Schumann's second declaration was a part: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm (163K) > > Contents > > Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Plaintiffs' > Motion to Modify the January 20, 2000 Order of Preliminary > Injunction > > Reply Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Cross-Motion > to Vacate the Preliminary Injunction This stuff is depressing. "Congress said you lose, so you lose. Go argue with Congress, not the blameless movie studios and courts that are only doing what the Congress said we could..." I hope someone will call them on their attempt to expand the scope of precedents limiting First Amendment defenses to copyright infringement. The old precedents claim that the First Amendment is not a defense to copyright infringement. The plaintiffs suggest that this implies that the First Amendment is _also_ not a defense to paracopyright infringement. Given that paracopyright was made up this past decade or so (wasn't it?) based on a different clause entirely in the Constitution (isn't it?) at the suggestion of the copyright industry, this interpretation is very strange. Old precedent: if Jack Valenti writes a book that I don't like, he has the right to publish it anyway, but I don't. New interpretation: if I write a computer program that Jack Valenti doesn't like, nobody has the right to publish it, or to tell anyone where it was published by someone in another country. -- 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 Sat Jun 10 20:33:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA13032 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:33:19 -0400 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 UAA13029 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:33:18 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-41.suba.com [206.69.121.233]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA15557 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:35:00 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] come on people now Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:34:31 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bfd33c$cefc4140$e97945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000001bfd312$09b6a4e0$c77945ce@bugbug> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu David Wagner pointed out that I forgot the link. So I sent it saying I was a little under the weather. Then I noticed I'd only sent it to David. I think I'll stay home tonight. sp http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of sparky > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 2:28 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] come on people now > > > I just put up the next draft of response to Schumann. As Blondie > said, tear > it to shreds. > > I did not rewrite the first section, though it clearly needs it in places. > > sparky > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 20:35:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA13152 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:35:09 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA13149 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:35:08 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:40:13 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D9D@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Filings of June 2 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:40:11 -0400 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 >From the preliminary statement in the June 2 filing: Defendants ignore that the anti-circumvention laws are intended to create a legal barrier to unauthorized access, as a separate and distinct right from copyright infringement. Irreparable harm should be presumed to result from trafficking in circumvention technology just as it is presumed when a copyright is infringed. Defendants also incorrectly assert that DeCSS does not result in unauthorized copying. In fact, as defendants admit, DeCSS, by its design and function, copies the decrypted DVD movie content onto computer hard drives, without the authority of the copyright owner. --------------------------------- This statement seems incorrect to me in a number of ways: 1. "legal barrier as a separate and distinct right from copyright" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Authority to access is conveyed by purchase of the DVD. If a separate right was created to control access past first sale, opening the door to the control of use, then this flies in the face of public policy. I think, based on a few statements I have read, that the plaintiffs will argue the time of access question, and say that the purchase of a DVD means you can play it only in one of their licensed players. I hope they do argue that, because then the license -- so far completely secret -- should be brought out in court. 2. "DeCSS does not result in unauthorized copying" I haven't seen that asserted in any of the documents so far. What I have seen written is that DeCSS is part of an ongoing effort in the production of a DVD player that is an independent product with its own licensing terms. Can DeCSS be used to make illegal copies? To me it is like asking if fertilizer can be used to make bombs, or if gasoline can be used to kill people. I think the argument is so simple we need to repeat it over and over again. If you buy a DVD, you can play it. You can play it on your home system, you can play it at your friend's house. You can play it on your computer. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 20:44:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA13224 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:44:50 -0400 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 UAA13221 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:44:49 -0400 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 UAA16895 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000610204137.00dd5440@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:46:34 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] come on people now In-Reply-To: <000101bfd33c$cefc4140$e97945ce@bugbug> References: <000001bfd312$09b6a4e0$c77945ce@bugbug> 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 Thanks. I've added the link to the Schumann response under "working drafts" on the DVD/resources page. (The page attempts to be a compendium of documents and links useful to the list's efforts.) A belated happy birthday, too! --Wendy At 07:34 PM 6/10/00 -0500, sparky wrote: >David Wagner pointed out that I forgot the link. So I sent it saying I was a >little under the weather. > >Then I noticed I'd only sent it to David. > >I think I'll stay home tonight. > >sp > >http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of sparky > > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 2:28 PM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] come on people now > > > > > > I just put up the next draft of response to Schumann. As Blondie > > said, tear > > it to shreds. > > > > I did not rewrite the first section, though it clearly needs it in places. > > > > sparky > > > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 20:53:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA13352 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:53:19 -0400 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 UAA13349 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:53:18 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-41.suba.com [206.69.121.233]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA15860 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:55:01 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] come on people now Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:54:32 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bfd33f$9aa3f520$e97945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000610204137.00dd5440@pop.bellatlantic.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wendy wrote: > > Thanks. I've added the link to the Schumann response under "working > drafts" on the DVD/resources page. > > (The page attempts to be a compendium of documents and links > useful to the > list's efforts.) > > A belated happy birthday, too! > --Wendy Thank you very much. :) > > At 07:34 PM 6/10/00 -0500, sparky wrote: > >David Wagner pointed out that I forgot the link. So I sent it > saying I was a > >little under the weather. > > > >Then I noticed I'd only sent it to David. > > > >I think I'll stay home tonight. > > > >sp > > > >http://www.zenadmen.com/anti1201/scorn/ReplySchumannDecl2d.htm > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of sparky > > > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 2:28 PM > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] come on people now > > > > > > > > > I just put up the next draft of response to Schumann. As Blondie > > > said, tear > > > it to shreds. > > > > > > I did not rewrite the first section, though it clearly needs > it in places. > > > > > > sparky > > > > > > > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 21:22:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA14125 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:22:58 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA14122 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:22:56 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA26837 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:24:33 -0500 Message-ID: <3942EBC9.63C72F87@mninter.net> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:30:49 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] come on people now References: <000001bfd312$09b6a4e0$c77945ce@bugbug> <4.2.2.20000610204137.00dd5440@pop.bellatlantic.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 I just want to add that if any of my trial data is used to support our position, I would like to have a chance to solidify the methodology, perform only the relevant tests in a controlled manner, and pair them with optimal results as determined by relevant specs. 100Mb ethernet, EIDE bus speeds, etc. I will gladly perform the experiments again with an eye to rigorous precision. Also, a legal question: I understand this trial is about the trafficking in a circumvention-device in violation of the DMCA. What recourse do we have in this court against the language of the trafficking or the anti-circumvention portions of the DMCA itself? Specifically, is this judge obligated to consider the fair-use implications of the DMCA even if the DMCA is inconsistent with "old-school" fair-use? Or is the answer to this question up in the air until a decision is rendered? And, a really naieve one: Is losing this case and appealing it (ultimately to have the law ruled unconstitutional) more desierable than winning it in this court, from a 1st Amendment standpoint? Assuming, of course, that the case is well-defended and the law is the deciding factor. Let me know if there is a place I can read more about this level of the judicial's role in determining the effect of the law. Thanks for bringing me up to speed. :) Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 22:22:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA14446 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:22:05 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA14443 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:22:04 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 130xPi-0005QN-00; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:23:50 -0700 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 19:23:50 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] come on people now Message-ID: <20000610192350.H16156@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <000001bfd312$09b6a4e0$c77945ce@bugbug> <4.2.2.20000610204137.00dd5440@pop.bellatlantic.net> <3942EBC9.63C72F87@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3942EBC9.63C72F87@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 08:30:49PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chris Moseng writes: > Specifically, is this judge obligated to consider the fair-use > implications of the DMCA even if the DMCA is inconsistent with > "old-school" fair-use? Or is the answer to this question up in the air > until a decision is rendered? Some people argue that fair use is a principle arising from the Constitution (or maybe from the common law), and is not a statutory right created by Congress. The MPAA emphatically disagrees with this and wants people to look at the current fair use law written by Congress, which is irrelevant to the DMCA. The MPAA points out that Congress did not consider circumvention to be fair use, and created no right of fair access. Judges have fairly different views of how much what Congress does affects them. Civil libertarians often hope that judges will say "not much" and rely on a constitutional claim in striking down a law. That doesn't happen that much. > And, a really naieve one: Is losing this case and appealing it > (ultimately to have the law ruled unconstitutional) more desierable than > winning it in this court, from a 1st Amendment standpoint? Assuming, of > course, that the case is well-defended and the law is the deciding > factor. Contrary to what some people think, you can make claims about constitutionality at any level, and you don't have to wait until you get to the Supreme Court. A lower court can find a law unconstitutional, although it might not want to, because of the danger that it will be overruled on appeal. I'm personally afraid that the defendants will win on some technicality or minor issue, creating little useful precedent, and that the plaintiffs will immediately bring another very similar case against someone else. They can easily afford to do that; where would the defense in that case find the money it needs to defend itself? -- 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 Sat Jun 10 23:21:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA15554 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:21:04 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA15551 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:21:03 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c01-111.015.popsite.net [64.24.72.111]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA24077 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000610200919.00ad1370@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:21:08 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] come on people now In-Reply-To: <3942EBC9.63C72F87@mninter.net> References: <000001bfd312$09b6a4e0$c77945ce@bugbug> <4.2.2.20000610204137.00dd5440@pop.bellatlantic.net> 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 08:30 PM 6/10/2000 -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: >Also, a legal question: I understand this trial is about the trafficking >in a circumvention-device in violation of the DMCA. What recourse do we >have in this court against the language of the trafficking or the >anti-circumvention portions of the DMCA itself? > >Specifically, is this judge obligated to consider the fair-use >implications of the DMCA even if the DMCA is inconsistent with >"old-school" fair-use? Or is the answer to this question up in the air >until a decision is rendered? This court needs to decide both the facts and the applicable law, and a decision about the applicable law certainly can include a decision that it is unconstitutional. Remember, for example, that both CDA I and CDA II were declared unconstitutional in their respective trial courts. In CDA I, the USSC affirmed the trial court's decision, in CDA II, we are waiting for the Court of Appeals to decide the government's appeal. >And, a really naieve one: Is losing this case and appealing it >(ultimately to have the law ruled unconstitutional) more desierable than >winning it in this court, from a 1st Amendment standpoint? Assuming, of >course, that the case is well-defended and the law is the deciding >factor. It is never more desirable to lose in the lower court - though sometimes one knows that one is going to lose there, and proceeds as much with an eye to creating the proper record on appeal as with any real hope of winning in the lower court. (Generally speaking, factual evidence does not exist for the appellate court unless it was offered in the lower court. If the "smoking gun" fact exists in the world, but not in the trial court record, it does not exist in the appellate court's world.) Some cases, such as the CDA cases, are pure matters of law. This one isn't, it involves determinations of both fact and law. And while the appellate court will review the law independently, it is bound to give great deference (though not 100% deference) to the trier of fact's findings of fact, and those are the facts to which the law is applied. Microsoft lost on the antitrust law because it got killed on the facts; and while an appellate court may decide that the breakup remedy was too draconian (or may not), it will not lightly second guess Judge Jackson's factual basis bor imposing the remedy. Besides, if the studios should lose in the trial court, don't you think that they will appeal? Short of a settlement, this case will not be tried and dropped, it will (IMO) be appealed regardless of who wins in the trial court. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 10 23:45:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA15762 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:45:57 -0400 Received: from eperke.themail.com (root@eperke.themail.com [216.64.18.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA15759 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:45:56 -0400 From: mw@themail.com Received: from mail.TheMail.com (mail2.themail.com [216.64.2.25] (may be forged)) by eperke.themail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA01941 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:45:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mw@themail.com) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:45:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200006110345.WAA01941@eperke.themail.com> Received-From: mail.TheMail.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Filings of June 2 X-Priority: 3 Authorized-User: mw@TheMail.com IP-Address: 209.255.234.43 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="___TheMail_6_Boundary___" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --___TheMail_6_Boundary___ Content-type: text/plain > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm (163K) wow. Have we reviewed, used, or gone over Chairman Bliley's comments on the DMCA? Remarks of Chairman Bliley from the Congressional Record. DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT -- HON. TOM BLILEY (Extension of Remarks - October 13, 1998) [Page: E2136] --- HON. TOM BLILEY in the House of Representatives http://www.hrrc.org/bliley_full_comments.html just below his comments on circumvention: "...If history is a guide, someone may yet try to use this bill as a basis for filing a lawsuit to stop legitimate new products from coming to market. " -marcia __________________________________________________________________ Make A Buck Or Two @ TheMail.com - Free Internet Email Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=44883 --___TheMail_6_Boundary___-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 00:55:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA16304 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:55:09 -0400 Received: from 209.58.67.69 (Teleglobe.net [209.58.67.69] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA16290 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:55:03 -0400 Received: apparently from Palito - 209.58.67.69 by 209.58.67.69 with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1775.675.6); Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:09:25 -0500 X-Sender: peruvians2000@hotmail.com From: Jorge Mattiesti To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:09:25 -0500 Subject: [dvd-discuss] page about Peru MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001__6585900_83365,89" Message-ID: <030742509040b60MARQUITO@209.58.67.69> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a Multipart MIME message. ------=_NextPart_000_001__6585900_83365,89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ------=_NextPart_000_001__6585900_83365,89 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please

Please visit page of Peru: http://209.58.67.69/peruvians  Our country is a beautiful place for know.

Jorge

------=_NextPart_000_001__6585900_83365,89-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 02:36:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA17769 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:36:53 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA17766 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:36:52 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA09123 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:38:26 -0500 Message-ID: <394333B8.60852BBF@mninter.net> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:37:44 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] come on people now References: <000001bfd312$09b6a4e0$c77945ce@bugbug> <4.2.2.20000610204137.00dd5440@pop.bellatlantic.net> <3942EBC9.63C72F87@mninter.net> <20000610192350.H16156@zork.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 Seth David Schoen wrote: > Contrary to what some people think, you can make claims about > constitutionality at any level, and you don't have to wait until you > get to the Supreme Court. Thanks. That's exactly the clarification I was looking for. > I'm personally afraid that the defendants will win on some > technicality or minor issue, creating little useful precedent, and > that the plaintiffs will immediately bring another very similar case > against someone else. They can easily afford to do that; where > would the defense in that case find the money it needs to defend > itself? And that is my original fear. I never believed that "throwing a case" would be a viable strategy (although Microsoft seems to challenge that assumption), but knowing it is possible for this judge to address this law head-on with the constitution helps me understand the implications this phase of the trial has on the DMCA's future. This is the sort of thing I knew intuitively, but needed corroboration. Thanks. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 03:07:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA17970 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 03:07:26 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA17967 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 03:07:25 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1311rr-0005hp-00; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:09:11 -0700 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:09:11 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] come on people now Message-ID: <20000611000911.K16156@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <000001bfd312$09b6a4e0$c77945ce@bugbug> <4.2.2.20000610204137.00dd5440@pop.bellatlantic.net> <3942EBC9.63C72F87@mninter.net> <20000610192350.H16156@zork.net> <394333B8.60852BBF@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <394333B8.60852BBF@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:37:44AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chris Moseng writes: > Seth David Schoen wrote: > > Contrary to what some people think, you can make claims about > > constitutionality at any level, and you don't have to wait until you > > get to the Supreme Court. > > Thanks. That's exactly the clarification I was looking for. We went around and around and around on this either on this list or another. Finally an actual lawyer (unlike myself, and unlike most of us) popped up and said, yep, that's how it works. I can cite a few cases where a law was overturned at the District Court level. But probably people don't expect that outcome because defense lawyers so rarely expect such challenges to work -- so they don't usually try them. At best, constitutionality challenges sometimes seem like half-hearted last-ditch Hail Mary alternate defenses -- "if you've gotten this far and are about to convict my client, how about ... uh ... _this_?" It's nice to know that Judge Kaplan has seen how seriously the defendants in this case, and some of their supporters, take the issue. It's obviously not an afterthought for this side. The EFF is here in the first place because of the serious free expression issues this case raises; the plaintiffs ridicule this by saying that _2600_'s attempts to compare itself to the _New York Times_ are spurious, but the _New York Times_ itself didn't seem too averse to the comparison. :-) -- 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 Jun 11 04:04:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA18273 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 04:04:10 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA18270 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 04:04:05 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c03-133.015.popsite.net [64.24.74.133]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA23013 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000611004716.00b6ada0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:04:09 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] come on people now In-Reply-To: <20000611000911.K16156@zork.net> References: <394333B8.60852BBF@mninter.net> <000001bfd312$09b6a4e0$c77945ce@bugbug> <4.2.2.20000610204137.00dd5440@pop.bellatlantic.net> <3942EBC9.63C72F87@mninter.net> <20000610192350.H16156@zork.net> <394333B8.60852BBF@mninter.net> 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 12:09 AM 6/11/2000 -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: >Chris Moseng writes: > > > Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > Contrary to what some people think, you can make claims about > > > constitutionality at any level, and you don't have to wait until you > > > get to the Supreme Court. > > > > Thanks. That's exactly the clarification I was looking for. > >We went around and around and around on this either on this list or >another. Finally an actual lawyer (unlike myself, and unlike most of >us) popped up and said, yep, that's how it works. C'est moi. And it was elsewhere. >I can cite a few cases where a law was overturned at the District >Court level. But probably people don't expect that outcome because >defense lawyers so rarely expect such challenges to work -- so they >don't usually try them. Um, Seth, remember, YANAL. ;-) Constitutional challenges have no bearing on more than 99% of the lawsuits which are filed. (A made up, but illustrative and probably accurate statistic.) But in cases where a constitutional challenge is appropriate, a good lawyer will plan around it from the beginning. >At best, constitutionality challenges sometimes seem like half-hearted >last-ditch Hail Mary alternate defenses -- "if you've gotten this far >and are about to convict my client, how about ... uh ... _this_?" Nope. See above. Constitutional challenges are rarely as easy as in, say, CDA I, and for good reason, lower court judges are (generally) less likely to entertain them seriously than reviewing courts. So, in most cases, the attorney would be doing a disservice to the client to rely on the constitutional challenge exclusively if other grounds of defense are available. ("You can't prove I did it, but even if you can, the law is unconstitutional.") Depending on the situation, even a serious constitutional challenge might not be pressed as hard in the lower court as on appeal, and some constitutional challenges border on frivolous, but a serious one isn't just an afterthought. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 13:20:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21642 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:20:41 -0400 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 NAA21639 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:20:39 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08259 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:22:26 -0400 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 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:22:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Bauer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Schumann deposition comments Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here are a few comments/questions I have from reading the deposition of Schumann deposition at http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rsd.htm ----------------------- There were references early on about css_auth being a "Linux/BSD program". Later changed to "a Linux program". There were some questions about "downloading" various pieces of documentation. They seem to be saying "downloading" was printing out on hardcopy the relevant document. The also came up again on P191. In fact, downloading refers to the act a transfering data from one computer to the computer you used to initiate the transfer. And although it would apply, the term "downloading" is typically not used for appearently transient data such as viewing a web page. Garbus sometimes to refered to Linux as if it was something like a company. e.g. "...any ...examination into Linux's attempts to build a DVD player?" --P124. Also "Did you have any discussion ...concerning Linux's attempted development of a DVD player" -- P125. It would have been more accurate to say something like "...concerning attempted development of a DVD player for a Linux based system." P131,L17. Is that just a really bad typo? (http/crypto.GQNU/) P152,L12-14. Something like this came up several times. This seems to be refering to the contents or data on a DVD disk as being a "DVD". It might be correct, but it sounds confusing to me. Could someone explain to me the nature of the objections WRT the linking questios on P188-189? Plaintifs seem to be saying that only one person can be deposed per subject. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. P198,L22. Was by any chance "Cynga" meant to be "Cygnus"? -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 13:43:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21814 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:43:46 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21811 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:43:45 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id NAA28989 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:47:45 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:41:21 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:40:44 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id NAA21812 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's another point, and the point of the questioning that Schumann wriggled out of answering: does DeCSS permit the evasion of the region coding. If it does, through function unrelated to decryption, then it is a utility with at least one property/function that does not implicate the anti-cirvumvention provisions of the DMCA, as interpreted by the plaintiffs, and is therefore permissible. My understanding is that in most, but not all cases, DeCSS does enable the user to evade region coding limititations. Is this true? >>> root 06/10/00 05:13AM >>> 83 1 Schumann 2 Q. Does DeCSS permit a consumer who has 3 purchased a DVD to fast-forward through sections of 4 a DVD that the manufacturer has prevented from 5 being fast-forwarded? The fast-forward prohibition is achieved throught the licensing of CSS, it is not a technical feature of CSS per se. This distinction between the technical feature of CSS proper and the technical features which are imposed by virtue of the licensing arrangements in clouded in this discussion. 6 A. DeCSS itself? 7 Q. That's my question. 8 A. No. 9 Q. Does DeCSS enable someone to use 10 with some other program, like a DVD player, to skip 11 the region code? 12 A. I think it is irrelevant to that 13 problem. Bzzzt. It is technically irrelevant, but it sure is legally relevant. 14 Q. You think DeCSS is irrelevant to 15 that problem? 16 A. To the problem of evading region 17 code? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. Yes. Again, only in a technical sense. Region coding does not require the application of a process or information [ §1201(a)(3) ], it requires the _testing_ of eight bits on the disk. Performance of that test is enforced by contractual obligation, not technical design. The design of CSS could have been such that each region would have its own set of player keys. Such an arrangement would have been a technological *enforcement* of region coding, probably pursuant to (a)(3) -- however I suspect that CSS and region coding were separated because of the possibility that region codes would be found an illegal restraint of trade (New Zealand?) meant that the technological measures needed to be kept separated. Once the measures are separated, the DVD-CCA/studios can shed region codes where they are illegal without affecting one their over-all goal of access control after first sale. 22 A. Yes, I have. 23 Q. In a Declaration if there is a 24 statement that says that DeCSS permits you to evade 25 region coding, a region coding limitation, then INTERIM COURT REPORTING 84 1 Schumann 2 that statement is incorrect? 3 MR. GOLD: I object to the form. 4 Q. You can answer the question. 5 A. In my professional opinion, DeCSS is 6 irrelevant to evading the region coding, in your 7 terminology. 8 Q. Why is that? 9 A. Because region coding is not part of 10 the DeCSS specification. This entirely misses the point. It is not whether region coding is part of the CSS spec, rather region coding is part of the CSS license [ caveat: these license are, so far as I know from examining the DVD-CCA web-site etc., non-public. Getting a look at these licenses might be very interesting. ] Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 14:15:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA22042 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:15:15 -0400 Received: from dial76.roadrunner.com (dial76.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.76] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22039 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:15:12 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial76.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00701 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:17:27 -0600 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:17:27 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Message-ID: <20000611121726.A499@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from ehernstadt@FGKS.COM on Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:40:44PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:40:44PM -0400, Edward Hernstadt wrote: > Here's another point, and the point of the questioning that Schumann > wriggled out of answering: does DeCSS permit the evasion of the region > coding. If it does, through function unrelated to decryption, then it > is a utility with at least one property/function that does not implicate > the anti-cirvumvention provisions of the DMCA, as interpreted by the > plaintiffs, and is therefore permissible. > > My understanding is that in most, but not all cases, DeCSS does enable > the user to evade region coding limititations. Is this true? DeCSS allows a user to descramble a work, irrespective of the region codes. Always. It didn't have to be this way. The designers of CSS could have tied the region coding to the descrambling by technical means, but they didn't. As a technological matter descrambling the work requires no knowledge of, nor attention to, region codes. As a technological matter playing the movie from VOB and/or IFO files requires no knowledge of, nor attention to, region codes. DeCSS enables region-coding free playback by totally ignoring region codes. One actually performs the playback after the operation of DeCSS, but again, there is no technological necessity or requirement for the _player_ software to do anything with region codes. Example: Books instead of DVDs, an obtuse kind of shorthand instead of CSS. Only studio-licensed performers know how to read the obtuse shorthand. The region coding would be a brief annotation at the front of the book indicating in what regions the book may be read. Only US-licensed readers will read US books, etc. 2600 tells me the "secret" to the obtuse shorthand. The studios sue 2600 for telling me the stupid little trick to reading the book. During deposition, someone claims that the annotation at the beginning of the book has nothing to do with the obtuse shorthand. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 14:47:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA22394 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:47:33 -0400 Received: from dial75.roadrunner.com (sf-du75.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.75]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22391 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:47:31 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial75.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00860 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:49:58 -0600 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:49:57 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Filings of June 2 Message-ID: <20000611124956.B499@localhost> References: <200006110345.WAA01941@eperke.themail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006110345.WAA01941@eperke.themail.com>; from mw@themail.com on Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:45:24PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:45:24PM -0500, mw@themail.com wrote: > > > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm (163K) > wow. > > Have we reviewed, used, or gone over Chairman Bliley's comments on the DMCA? > Remarks of Chairman Bliley from the Congressional Record. Take a look at: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 16:08:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] "Access control", tying, and the legislative history... Message-Id: <200003272108.QAA00488@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It's probably a good starting point. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 16:02:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA22874 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:02:10 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA22871 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:02:08 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131DxS-00009G-00; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:03:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:03:46 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cc: Edward Hernstadt Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Message-ID: <20000611130346.P16156@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, Edward Hernstadt References: <20000611121726.A499@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000611121726.A499@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 12:17:27PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:40:44PM -0400, Edward Hernstadt wrote: > > Here's another point, and the point of the questioning that Schumann > > wriggled out of answering: does DeCSS permit the evasion of the region > > coding. If it does, through function unrelated to decryption, then it > > is a utility with at least one property/function that does not implicate > > the anti-cirvumvention provisions of the DMCA, as interpreted by the > > plaintiffs, and is therefore permissible. > > > > My understanding is that in most, but not all cases, DeCSS does enable > > the user to evade region coding limititations. Is this true? > > DeCSS allows a user to descramble a work, irrespective of the region codes. > Always. It didn't have to be this way. The designers of CSS could have > tied the region coding to the descrambling by technical means, but they > didn't. > > As a technological matter descrambling the work requires no knowledge of, > nor attention to, region codes. > > As a technological matter playing the movie from VOB and/or IFO files requires > no knowledge of, nor attention to, region codes. > > DeCSS enables region-coding free playback by totally ignoring region > codes. > > One actually performs the playback after the operation of DeCSS, but > again, there is no technological necessity or requirement for the > _player_ software to do anything with region codes. What has been mentioned on this list and elsewhere is that CSS has nothing to do with region codes _as a technical matter_, but a great deal to do with region codes _as a practical matter_. The DVD Copy Control Association made companies sign a license agreement, as a condition of receiving a license to use CSS (in the sense of building or distributing products that implement CSS encryption or decryption). Everyone thinks that this agreement included an obligation to produce only devices (and software -- since software, contra the MPAA, is not a "device"!) which enforce region codes. There seem to be two agreements, one version of one of which is on of one applicable agreement is on-line at http://cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm (Look for the "AMENDED AND RESTATED CSS INTERIM LICENSE AGREEMENT".) That agreement talks about some restrictions on the products which may be distributed by a CSS Licensee. See 1.18 "Protected". It doesn't mention region codes at all. Neither does Hoy. If you've deposed him, I hope you asked him in great detail about region codes; if not, I hope you will. There are other agreements which were not included there, such as the "CSS Procedural and Amended and Restated Technical Specifications". (Wendy Seltzer was just recently talking about those.) It's very likely that those Specifications include a requirement to honor region codes. In fact, the DVD CCA says that they do; see http://www.dvdcca.org/dvdcca/rpc.html (This is talking about hardware, not about software, but it does mention region codes as a requirement of the Procedural Specifications which accompany the CSS license.) Region codes are not a "right of a copyright owner". But they are contractually imposed on CSS licensees, as the DVD CCA itself admits. So the DVD CCA uses CSS licensing to force manufacturers to agree to restrictions on the capabilities of their products, far beyond protecting legally recognized rights of a copyright owner. DeCSS (and other unlicensed implementations of CSS decryption) completely avoid this licensing regime and thus _in practice_ avoid region codes, unlike licensed products. This is an advantage for consumers -- it gets them, more or less, what they could have had with VCRs: the ability to order foreign movies and have them play in your video equipment. (Yes, there are three different video standards for VCRs, but some "videophile" equipment supports all of them, and commercial services to convert tapes from one format to another flourish, with little doubt as to their legality. So American consumers can, if they want, easily order video tapes from foreign countries and find a way to play them here. DeCSS and other software derived from it gives them exactly the same ability with DVDs, much to the consternation of the MPAA.) -- 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 Jun 11 17:10:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23512 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:10:01 -0400 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 RAA23507 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:10:00 -0400 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 OAA15906; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:09:28 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA04139; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:08:38 -0700 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] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Date: 11 Jun 2000 14:07:31 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 39 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8i0v2j$41a$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 , Edward Hernstadt wrote: > Here's another point, and the point of the questioning that > Schumann wriggled out of answering: does DeCSS permit the > evasion of the region coding. Technically, the CSS encryption does not itself enforce the region coding restriction (at least, not directly), so one could with a straight face try to pretend that the answer is a simple no. And one might even get away with such a bluff, if the listener isn't too well-informed on DVD security systems... However, the real situation is more complex than that. As far as I know, none of the licensed DVD players available today allow you to bypass the region coding (or to skip past commercials, if they are marked "don't skip", or to make full-quality back-up copies, or for full-quality time- or space-shifting, etc.). The natural response -- at least, natural for Open Source advocates, or other techies, geeks, and hobbyists -- is to try to go build your own DVD player. But the barrier to building your own DVD player is that you have to descramble the encrypted movie -- so you need something like DeCSS to build your own DVD player. Once you have DeCSS (or something with equivalent functionality), you may then build your own DVD player, and you may build it in a way that ignores region coding (or that allows you to skip past commercials), but until you've got something like DeCSS, you're stuck. There has been speculation that the CSS licensing procedure might require manufacturers to promise to implement region coding restrictions, unskippable commercials, and so on, but I don't know of any conclusive evidence on this point. Anyway, my understanding is that evading region coding is apparently not possible *today* without DeCSS (or equivalent). (That could change in the future if alternate DVD players which ignore region coding become widely available, but in the meantime, one needs a DeCSS.) So, although the topic is a little bit more complicated than Schumann's deposition might suggest, I think the most reasonable answer to your question is, "yes, DeCSS enables evasion of region coding". From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 17:21:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23660 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:21:48 -0400 Received: from web510.mail.yahoo.com (web510.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA23657 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:21:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20000611212305.5704.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:23:05 PDT Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:23:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Filings of June 2 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: > I hope someone will call them on their attempt to expand the scope of > precedents limiting First Amendment defenses to copyright > infringement. > > The old precedents claim that the First Amendment is not a defense to > copyright infringement. The plaintiffs suggest that this implies > that the First Amendment is _also_ not a defense to paracopyright > infringement. The plaintiffs suggest as much, but Congress actually "suggested" the following standard for balancing paracopyright with the 1st Amendment: "Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products." 1201(c)(4). Even if Congress MIGHT have the power to restrict some speech based on compelling state interest, there is no indication that they DID -- in fact, just the opposite they explicitly say they didn't. I think there is a consistent mistake in the Plaintiffs rebuttals to the First Amendment arguement: the defense is not just making Constitutional arguements, but also STATUTORY arguements based on 1201(c)(4) and 1203(b)(1). > Given that paracopyright was made up this past decade or so (wasn't > it?) based on a different clause entirely in the Constitution (isn't > it?) at the suggestion of the copyright industry, this interpretation > is very strange. I know I read at least two places in the Legislative history where Congress promoted the DMCA as a commerce clause exercise and NOT from the copyright power. If I get a chance, I'll dig them up unless somebody has them handy. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 17:26:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23823 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:26:28 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA23820 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:26:27 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA18060 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:28:06 -0500 Message-ID: <394403EB.83B44727@mninter.net> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:26:03 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] On Circumvention and Trafficking 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 use a Creative Labs DXR2 to watch DVDs, and as far as I know all of them are CSS encrypted. I also possess software called "Remote Selector" that apparently affects and controls both the DXR2 card and the DVD Encore software. Among its functions are disabling macrovision and turning off regional control. Assumption: Macrovision and regional controls are "technological measures" that control access. Macrovision not as strongly, perhaps, but bear with me. This software is interesting because of its relation to the DMCA. First of all, it predates the law. According to my (non-lawyer) reading, using it for the above purposes violates the law; however, trafficking in it might not because it has non-infringing uses--it can be used to allow remote operation of the Encore software through an infrared port and watching PAL formatted movies on an NTSC TV. There is a harware analogy in those "picture enhancers" you put between your TV and VCR that also happen to bash macrovision. How is this information useful? Well, wouldn't simple alterations free DeCSS from the trafficking restriction? Adding a button to activate your screen saver, perhaps, or generating a random number? How much non-infringing use must a device have to make it legitimate? Must it have as many non-infringing uses as infringing ones? Ten times as many? This may be the loophole that stymies the MPAA. Adding non-infringing uses to offensive software and hardware simply makes them "illegal" to use--but trafficking would be permitted. Much like the cable descramblers that are sure to put an end to cable TV as we know it. The MPAA will be forced to sue criminals instead of standing in front of fair-use with arms akimbo. Could it then be argued that the non-infringing uses are immaterial? That, because forced addition of non-infringing uses is both trivial, comedic and a violation of the first amendment (in the same way as if the government forced anyone to dilute their speech with "pleasant" speech, perhaps), or of a law that prohibits the government from dictating the nature of commercial products (of which I could not find an example, but, as they say, "there oughtta be one"), requiring them to bring the product to market is unacceptable? Especially because using DeCSS, or a product like it, will be a right to make use of CSS encrypted material whose copyright has expired. In the last instance, DeCSS would only have one "use" -- the decrypt button -- but could be used in non-infringing ways. Much like a gun or a CD-R drive. In the end, I'm think that this is the role that software like DeCSS will play. Niche software, readily obtained, that allows fair-users choice but most people avoid because it exists in a legal grey-area. Would a scenario like this appease list-members or the defense? Or is something more extreme the goal? Does any of what I said make sense or give anyone an idea? Still getting my mind around it, Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 18:05:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24170 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:05:27 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA24167 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:05:26 -0400 Message-ID: <20000611220644.28076.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:06:44 PDT Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Filings of June 2 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 --- mw@themail.com wrote: > Have we reviewed, used, or gone over Chairman Bliley's comments on > the DMCA? Remarks of Chairman Bliley from the Congressional Record. > > > DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT -- HON. TOM BLILEY (Extension of > Remarks - October 13, 1998) > [Page: E2136] > HON. TOM BLILEY > in the House of Representatives > http://www.hrrc.org/bliley_full_comments.html There's some real pay-dirt in here. I remember reading this before, but I don't know if it was ever discussed here. As proposed by the Clinton Administration, however, the anti-circumvention provisions to implement the WIPO treaties would have represented a radical departure from this tradition. In a September 16, 1997 letter to Congress, 62 distinguished law professors expressed their concern about the implications of regulating devices through proposed section 1201. They said in relevant part: `[E]nactment of Section 1201 would represent an unprecedented departure into the zone of what might be called paracopyright--an uncharted new domain of legislative provisions designed to strengthen copyright protection by regulating conduct which traditionally has fallen outside the regulatory sphere of intellectual property law.' The ramifications of such a fundamental shift in law would be quite significant. Under section 1201(a)(1) as proposed by the Administration, for example, a copyright owner could deny a person access to a work, even in situations that today would be perfectly lawful as a legitimate `fair use' of the work. In addition, under section 1201(b) as proposed by the Administration, a copyright owner could successfully block the manufacturing and sale of a device used to make fair use copies of copyrighted works, effectively overruling the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). In the view of our Committee, there was no need to create such risks, including the risk that enactment of the bill could establish the legal framework that would inexorably create a `pay-per-use' society. Note the use of the words "outside of the Copyright Act": Thus, the Committee endeavored to specify, with as much clarity as possible, how the anti-circumvention right, established in title 17 but outside of the Copyright Act, would be qualified to maintain balance between the interests of content creators and information users. The Committee considered it particularly important to ensure that the concept of fair use remain firmly established in the law and that consumer electronics, telecommunications, computer, and other legitimate device manufacturers have the freedom to design new products without being subjected to the threat of litigation for making design decisions. This makes it pretty clear-cut "NOT the 'copyright' clause: In making our proposed recommendations, the Committee on Commerce acted under both the `copyright' clause and the commerce clause. Both the conduct and device provisions of section 1201 create new rights in addition to those which Congress is authorized to recognize under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. As pointed out by the distinguished law professors quoted above, this legislation is really a `paracopyright' measure. In this respect, then, the constitutional basis for legislating is the commerce clause, not the `copyright' clause. Here's a very clear statement that some form of what we are calling 'fair access' exists: I might add that the terminology of `fair use' is often used in reference to a range of consumer interests in copyright law. In connection with the enactment of a `paracopyright' regime, consumers also have an important related interest in continued access, on reasonable terms, to information governed by such a regime. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 18:56:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24439 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:56:53 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA24436 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:56:52 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:02:01 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4D9F@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] On Circumvention and Trafficking Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:01:57 -0400 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 This is an old legal problem that I have always heard as "the socially responsible pornographer." Say I publish a magazine full of target shots but I also include stories, political commentary, medical information, etc. as part of the magazine. Can my publication be censored as obscene? ---- As for DeCSS, its my argument that the act of copying a DVD to another medium is legal until the copy violates an explicit right retained by the original author, such as the right of public display. One phrase that the plaintiffs use all the time is taken directly out of the DMCA, "with the authority of the copyright owners." It appears that the believe is that the authority is conveyed only when the DVD is put into a licensed player. To be sure, the DMCA talks about unscrambling a work with the authority of the copyright owner, but to my non-legal eye that means "you cannot unscramble a work unless you have bought it first", *not* "the copyright owner gets to determine how and when you access the work." So, in other words, I see the DMCA as protecting my ability to sell encrypted software or whatever electronically, and then giving out the key for some amount of money. You know, its funny, I've worked for years in software, and software companies have always wanted control over the use of their products, and so they have always tried through EULAs and technological measures to do that. They've always had two major reasons why. First, it protects the pricing model that is based on amount of use you get. Second, it allows the company to force upgrades. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 23:46:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA26318 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:46:01 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA26315 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:46:00 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (jeffw@firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA12376 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:47:44 -0400 Message-ID: <39445D43.208E800E@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:47:15 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15pre19-dvd i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd Subject: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm#Gronich She really doesn't know much about the technology huh? Take for instance her statement that mpeg can be compressed and then transmitted, and DeCSS enables copying. Perhaps fed this stuff by the lawyers? So with all the technological stuff removed, her statement is basically, if fewer people buy DVD's then DVD sales will be affected. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 02:37:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA27430 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:37:12 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA27427 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:37:11 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA16803 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:38:42 -0500 Message-ID: <394484DE.2396BA58@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:36:14 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl References: <39445D43.208E800E@mindspring.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 fact is that unauthorized decryption of CSS-protected DVD movies makes it possible for persons to engage in widespread acts of copyright infringement." The movies must be decrypted to be viewed, and at any point after the decryption the movie can be recompressed without encryption (in MPEG2, MPEG4, Quicktime or VHS) and distributed in violation of copyright. *Viewing the movie* makes it possible for persons to engage in widespread acts of copyright infringement. If Fox is concerned about the widespread internet distribution of their copyrighted works, they should be after the creators of motion picture compression technology. If any technology "makes it possible for persons to engage in widespread acts of copyright infringement," it is that technology. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 03:52:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA27795 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:52:20 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA27792 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:52:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5C7s5k25775 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:54:05 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:54:02 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C19@mail2.onetouch.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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: >The best speed would (I think) come from fast/wide SCSI with >bus-mastering capability ... I -think- that "bus mastering" >is the feature that lets the CPU stay out of the equation and >lets the two drives talk directly to each other. The CPU is hardly the bottleneck, given that its bus access is extremely fast. Byte by byte copying through the CPU is probably faster than storing/reading through memory, absent interrupts. What bus mastering does is, it allows all the devices sitting on the extension bus to access the memory on an equal basis (including the CPU). The best performance comes from I2O devices which need never put the data through the bus in the first place. The data goes directly from device to device controller (SCSI board) to another device, possibly at speeds far exceeding the capability of an average home PC's available bus bandwidth (say, Fibre Channel-Arbitrated Loop without extra load => 400Mbps which is more than what is left of a 100MHz, 32bit bus after the CPU takes its toll). Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 03:59:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA27904 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:59:29 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA27901 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:59:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5C81E327053 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:01:14 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:01:13 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000608105730.A598@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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: >Perhaps someone can explain to me what the point of "water-marking is? >It isn't like there would be any question about who owns the copyright >to a work in most circumstances, so is the only point to bust people's >chops after the fact? Yep, that's the deterrent. You will also need to realize that there can be multiple watermarks in some material, some of which can be visible. Making watermark recognition mandatory in all recording capable equipment seems the logical next step after watermarks have first been established. Automated monitoring also becomes a lot easier after watermarks are carried in the content - picture wideband scanners to monitor all television and radio broadcasts, plus web crawlers to monitor what goes on on webcasts. The RIAA/MPAA ideal society... Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 04:06:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA28096 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:06:43 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA28093 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:06:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5C88Qa28236 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:08:26 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:08:25 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1B@mail2.onetouch.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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: >Let's not get sidetracked. The question is not whether piracy >is practical or not -- because if it is not now, it will be in >the not-to-distant future. The issue is whether the spectre of >piracy is enough to justify measures that prevent otherwise >legal activities (i.e. "fair use"). But this is still a serious issue - the original injunction is predicated on substantial expected harm. At the worst (if the case is lost and damages must be paid), the lack of substantiated harm still makes the injunction pretty questionable in terms of the 1st Amendment. This should have an effect on any possible damages awarded. >When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's easy to forget >that you came there to drain the swamp... That sounds rather more depressing than I would have liked on a Monday morning. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 04:15:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA28191 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:15:49 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA28188 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:15:42 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5C8HSJ29600 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:17:28 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:17:27 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C1D@mail2.onetouch.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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: >Actually that "illegal to own a car that can go >65mph" >thing might be another good argument to have on hand. But in some countries, I believe this is standing law. Strong paternalism - true. The American Way - probably not. Law - why not? >There are lots of tools that are -capable- of being >used illegally ... but it is the -act- that is prosecutable, >and the tool is not restricted. (notable exception: owning >lock pics is illegal in many places unless you are a locksmith) Might go for supercomputers as well. At least you cannot freely export them. There are lots of things with multiple uses, some of which are legal and some other illegal. Say, certain chemicals (potassic permanganate is one of the more useful but still its sales are registered because it's also an amphetamine precursor) and biological agents (common phage vectors used in bioweapons synthesis). It's the balance that counts, and this is also shown in the text of 1201 (the with little legal, significant use-lingo). What needs to be shown is that DeCSS has significant noninfringing use. This was discussed but I don't think truly persuasive uses were discovered. This is worrisome. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 04:17:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA28289 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:17:56 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA28285 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:17:49 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA20795 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:19:19 -0500 Message-ID: <39449DA1.B718DB80@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:21:53 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time 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 Now, whether or not the defense can continue to argue directly the assertions in this most recent filing, I think they provide them with some solid possibilities to attack the constitutionality of the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA, as well as their specific complaint against DeCSS. >"The injunction sought by plaintiffs bars—and the DMCA prohibits—only >'offering to the public, providing or otherwise trafficking in' DeCSS, >not discussion, criticism, conversation or other activities which do >not involve providing DeCSS. The focus here is not on speech per se, >but on the dissemination of an unlawful decryption device in violation >of the DMCA." Ask any student of semiotics or the philosophy of language, but DeCSS, in source or object form, has become speech as a result of the trial. The code now stands for "freedom of speech," or "the DMCA is unconstitutional," or "keep the MPAA out of my computer." The program, compiled or not, now also has a non-infringing use: that of civilly defying a law that is widely seen as unjust. Not only is using the program possibly within the law, having the program *says *something. By extension, the same is true of linking to DeCSS. Not until 2600 was named a defendant in this case did this transformation take place. I think the MPAA painted itself into a corner. >"The distinction between enjoining speech and protecting intellectual >property rights was recognized in OBH, Inc. v. Spotlight >Magazine, Inc..." This trial is not about infringing on intellectual property. Nobody has violated copyright, the assertion regarding the trademark/domain dispute is irrelevant. I don't see anywhere in the DMCA that technological methods to protect access are themselves intellectual property--the access control technology could be a padlock or a pointed stick. If they are asserting that CSS is itself protected by copyright or other intellectual property law, they're arguing it in the wrong trial. >"III. DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE ATTEMPT TO HAVE THIS >COURT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT ON MATTERS ALREADY CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS >IN ITS ENACTMENT OF THE DMCA " Isn't that the federal judicial system's job? >"B. Defendants' Conduct Does Not Fall Within the Express Exemptions >Of Section 1201, And Is Otherwise Indefensible" There is, in fact, one exemption that the defendants' conduct does fall within: 1201(a) The anti-circumvention language is not effective until the Librarian of Congress returns his report re the media exempt from 1201. This will occur on October 28. Can someone tell me why I'm wrong about this? Also, I think 1201(c)(2) would apply: "Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement..." This trial is essentially about establishing the defendants responsible for contributory liability of copyright infringement, call it what you'd like, and the last I heard, selling copy machines was not illegal. >"Although Section 1201 plainly preserves the right of "fair use" as a > 'defense to copyright infringement,' that provision does not >incorporate a fair use defense into the separate prohibitions regarding >circumvention." As has been mentioned before, this assertion flies in the face of the understanding home viewers have when they purchase a copyrighted work. Either they are granted access to their copy of the work for home viewing or not. Nobody who bought a DVD understands that they are actually only authorized to view the DVD on their CSS-licensed DVD player, nor could they be expected to. So in this section they are either arguing their new "DVD Limited Home License," which is only possible thanks to the DMCA (which the DMCA expressly excludes from its scope); or they are actually accusing the defendants of "circumventing a technological measure" (see their quote from the copyright office on fair-use defenses). I would find the first possibility more exciting because the DMCA states that fair use cannot be infringed (and congress is relying on the Librarian of Congress to steer it right), and the whole CSS-licensing house of cards may collapse as a direct result of this position. >"The Court must not only take into account the impact of these >particular defendants' acts, if condoned as a fair use; it must >also consider the aggregate effect of all others who may then engage >in similar uses." This seems contrary to my understanding of fair use--that every infringement case must be tried on its individual merits. Am I incorrect? >"4. Defendants' Reliance Upon The First Sale Doctrine Is Misplaced " This is a really baffling section. >"Defendants' reliance on the "first sale" doctrine in this >context (i.e., that the copyright owner has no control over >the disposition of a lawful copy, once it has been sold), is >sorely misplaced. First, defendants' argument assumes that anyone who >uses DeCSS to decrypt a DVD will have purchased or otherwise lawfully >acquired the DVD. " This is an absurd statement. The same logic would outlaw any device that can replay/reproduce copyrighted works. Copy machines, VCRs, computers would all have to go! >"Nothing in the DMCA, or in 17 U.S.C. § 109, purports to excuse >trafficking in a decryption device based upon some alleged authority >of a user to decrypt legitimate copies, by any means." Notice they do not say "legitimately decrypt," which is a distinct possibility even under the DMCA. For every legitimate copy that exists there is a person that can legitimately decrypt it to make fair use of it. If any DVD can be legitimately decrypted, there are non-infringing uses of DeCSS. Because home users are not party to the CSS protection racket, every legitimate DVD can be legitimately decrypted by its owner under fair use. DeCSS, therefore, has substantial non-infringing uses. >28 Defendants also claim that DeCSS enables users to defeat >"regional coding." That is not only untrue, (see Second Supp. Schumann >Decl. ll 23), but even if it were true, supplying a device to >circumvent a territorial restriction would itself violate § >1201(a)(2)(A). See my earlier mail about Remote Selector. It defeats region coding, but has non-infringing uses. It is not illegal to supply it under 1201(a)(2)(A). I will post a copy on my DeCSS page. >"as the Second Supplemental Boyden Declaration shows >(see esp. ¶¶ 4-6), most of what they are proliferating is object >code—the form in which most of defendants' links provide >DeCSS. Object code has little, if any, expressive value, as defendants' >chosen "experts" acknowledge." See my earlier comments on semiotics. Also, enjoining the defendants from linking to DeCSS entirely, in light of this argument, would be overreaching. If source code is protected, the injunction would violate the first amendment. Simply because some people are not as eloquent in their research and criticism does not give the prosecution or the court power to chill their speech. >"As this Court has recognized, "it is no longer open to doubt that the >First Amendment does not shield copyright infringement." Here the prosecution again confuses copyright infringement with trafficking in an anti-circumvention device. The defendants are not accused of copyright infringement. ---- Summing up: I'm interested to hear why the accused can be tried on the elements of the DMCA that are not in effect. I would also be interested to discuss further the semiotic meaning of DeCSS and how both the source and object code now have meaning beyond their use. There is no doubt professors of philosophy, linguistics or anthropology, etc. would have a field day with the meaning of DeCSS. Would the judge be convinced by such a position? Lastly, because the number of legitimately owned DVDs exceeds the number of pirated DVDs, am I wrong in asserting that DeCSS has substantial non-infringing uses with the assumption of fair-use, protected even by the DMCA, and that trafficking may be legal despite its DMCA-illegal function? BTW-I hope you all know that the Library of congress is accepting post-hearing comments until June 23. Has this list considered crafting something? Did anyone go to the hearings? They were not surprisingly unreported by the media. Chris http://www.underwhelm.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 04:18:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA28301 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:18:46 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA28298 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:18:35 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5C8KHZ00139 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:20:18 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:20:16 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <200006081735.KAA02233@scv1.apple.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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, awells wrote: >At least, that's my understanding of how watermarks work (or at least, >how the MPAA would like them to work). Of course, there will be >de-watermarking tools developed, but perhaps these will be attacked as >well by future MPAA suits. Of course. Watermarks are probably TPM's. And what's more, reliable dewatermarking isn't possible - watermarks are all about steganography, which is pretty reliable nowadays. It's quite possible to develop watermarks which you do not see and cannot remove without the original keys. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 04:34:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA28557 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:34:29 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA28554 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:34:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5C8aDP02846 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:36:13 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:36:12 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Joshua Stratton wrote: >Typically watermarks consist of changes to the least significant bit of >data. Actually we just use a wideband signal of very low level. This /seems/ like it's only changing the lowest bit but actually it can be engineered to do a lot more, all without being seen. >False positives can be a problem, but I'd be pretty impressed if they >actually happened. The odds are slim across an image of any decent size. Usually the data is also heavily error protected so that cutting away significant portions of the picture introduce no damage. >Resizing the image oddly (e.g. 98.5% of original), applying slight blurs, >skewing it by a degree, all break watermarks. That is the common problem with still pictures. Current watermarking schemes rely on embeddings which are far from scale/rotation invariant. Blurring should affect a well designed watermark, however. With audio and video, the situation is completely different. In addition to the vast amounts of unseen information present in digital video and audio (remember, the best audio codecs can throw away something like 14/15 of the data before being noticed; that 14/15 could in principle be filled with watermarking data) mean that watermarks are easy to put in. In addition, affine invariance is not a problem since we can rely on the time dimension instead (that cannot be scaled arbitrarily without killing the essence of the work). >Hardware and software readers could be, but open source software readers >are unlikely to be (and it would be easy to remove that function if >desired) and DVD drives can't be or else there would be BAD things >happening to software, which is not at all tolerant of being randomly >altered, even a little bit. (IIRC a misplaced bracket caused a space >probe to crash in the ocean once) But who ever said that CSS-like copy protection cannot serve as a signal to turn on watermarks? Even in DVD-ROM drives. Also, the case at hand suggests the MPAA members have little sympathy for open source. If it becomes a problem, it might well be that it's someday outlawed, in one way or another. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 04:58:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA29245 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:58:53 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA29242 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:58:51 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131Q5I-0000iG-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:00:40 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:00:40 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612020040.C722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <39449DA1.B718DB80@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <39449DA1.B718DB80@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 03:21:53AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chris Moseng writes: > >"The injunction sought by plaintiffs bars—and the DMCA prohibits—only > >'offering to the public, providing or otherwise trafficking in' DeCSS, > >not discussion, criticism, conversation or other activities which do > >not involve providing DeCSS. The focus here is not on speech per se, > >but on the dissemination of an unlawful decryption device in violation > >of the DMCA." > > Ask any student of semiotics or the philosophy of language, but DeCSS, > in source or object form, has become speech as a result of the trial. > The code now stands for "freedom of speech," or "the DMCA is > unconstitutional," or "keep the MPAA out of my computer." > > The program, compiled or not, now also has a non-infringing use: that of > civilly defying a law that is widely seen as unjust. Not only is using > the program possibly within the law, having the program *says > *something. So you want the Court to say that DeCSS is legal because people can use it to violate the law? Defying unjust laws is illegal. > [portions trimmed and re-ordered] > > >"Although Section 1201 plainly preserves the right of "fair use" as a > > 'defense to copyright infringement,' that provision does not > >incorporate a fair use defense into the separate prohibitions regarding > >circumvention." > > As has been mentioned before, this assertion flies in the face of the > understanding home viewers have when they purchase a copyrighted work. > Either they are granted access to their copy of the work for home > viewing or not. Nobody who bought a DVD understands that they are > actually only authorized to view the DVD on their CSS-licensed DVD > player, nor could they be expected to. Counter: home viewers don't know whether or not they're authorized. The industry decides that via secret contracts, and then enforces its understanding by lawsuits, like this one. There is no reason for home viewers to need to know the details of how they became authorized. Counter 2: even if the law doesn't make any sense, it still doesn't mention fair access, so why should the Court believe the defendants when they say that fair access exists in the law? > >"Defendants' reliance on the "first sale" doctrine in this > >context (i.e., that the copyright owner has no control over > >the disposition of a lawful copy, once it has been sold), is > >sorely misplaced. First, defendants' argument assumes that anyone who > >uses DeCSS to decrypt a DVD will have purchased or otherwise lawfully > >acquired the DVD. " > > This is an absurd statement. The same logic would outlaw any device that > can replay/reproduce copyrighted works. Copy machines, VCRs, computers > would all have to go! See below on "contributory copyright infringement"; the plaintiffs are alleging a totally new _kind_ of violation. But you're right: the argument doesn't assume what the plaintiffs say it does. It assumes that the user of DeCSS _may_ have purchased... Economic arguments suggest that most people who use DeCSS will use it on legal copies. (If DeCSS is a piracy tool, there will be no need to use it a second time on the illegal copies!) > >28 Defendants also claim that DeCSS enables users to defeat > >"regional coding." That is not only untrue, (see Second Supp. Schumann >Decl. ll 23), but even if it were true, supplying a device to >circumvent a territorial restriction would itself violate § >1201(a)(2)(A). Wow, the plaintiffs really said this? A territorial restriction is not a right of the copyright owner. Claiming that something that (just) defeats region codes violates 1201(a)(2)(A) is a _big_ stretch! > See my earlier comments on semiotics. Also, enjoining the defendants > from linking to DeCSS entirely, in light of this argument, would be > overreaching. If source code is protected, the injunction would violate > the first amendment. Simply because some people are not as eloquent in > their research and criticism does not give the prosecution or the court > power to chill their speech. I'd say that people are publishing because they want the information to be available, no more and no less. Many people who are publishing are _not_ engaged in research or criticism, but they do want to promote dissemination of the information. If there weren't a lawsuit, this would be less of an issue. DeCSS was pretty boring before (no offense, Jon). Now, it's an exciting political issue. I agree with you about the value of DeCSS as a political statement. (I don't agree that that would make it legal _if_ it were otherwise illegal, but I think that's clearly the main reason most people post it, sometimes with some significant risk to themselves.) If you can say "Fuck the draft" to make people upset or make them think about an issue, you ought to be able to say "const void CSSTab1[]" for similar reasons. It's funny that the plaintiffs are trying to use Emmanuel Goldstein's statement that he's never used DeCSS against him. I've never used the thing either, but I spend time and money trying to maintain its availability because of what it symbolizes. DeCSS _is_ of academic interest, but to a limited number of people. If the lawsuit succeeds in suppressing it entirely, it won't be available to _anybody_, academic or not. It's silly to have courts judging who's a legitimate researcher and who's not. Someone should send Judge Kaplan to DefCon and have him try to pick out who the legitimate cryptographers are. :-) > >"The distinction between enjoining speech and protecting intellectual > >property rights was recognized in OBH, Inc. v. Spotlight > >Magazine, Inc..." > > This trial is not about infringing on intellectual property. Nobody has > violated copyright, the assertion regarding the trademark/domain dispute > is irrelevant. I don't see anywhere in the DMCA that technological > methods to protect access are themselves intellectual property--the > access control technology could be a padlock or a pointed stick. If they > are asserting that CSS is itself protected by copyright or other > intellectual property law, they're arguing it in the wrong trial. > [...] > >"As this Court has recognized, "it is no longer open to doubt that the > >First Amendment does not shield copyright infringement." > > Here the prosecution again confuses copyright infringement with > trafficking in an anti-circumvention device. The defendants are not > accused of copyright infringement. That's a good point, akin to what we were talking about here recently. Concise version: - It is settled law that the First Amendment does not shield copyright infringement. - It is not at all settled law that the First Amendment does not shield paracopyright infringement. (Commerce Clause regulations of speech are _not_ so highly favored, and could be subject to various legal standards of scrutiny. Besides, paracopyright was just now invented, and has not been the subject of much previous litigation. So precedents relying on the Copyright Clause cannot be applied automatically to free-expression claims against paracopyright law, which relies on a totally different authority.) Paracopyright is quite different from copyright, as the "distinguished law professors" Bliley mentions discussed with much concern. > Summing up: I'm interested to hear why the accused can be tried on the > elements of the DMCA that are not in effect. They're not. > Lastly, because the number of legitimately owned DVDs exceeds the number > of pirated DVDs, am I wrong in asserting that DeCSS has substantial > non-infringing uses with the assumption of fair-use, protected even by > the DMCA, and that trafficking may be legal despite its DMCA-illegal > function? Where does the DMCA protect fair use? It says you can distribute something that has non-circumvention uses, which is not the same as non-infringing uses. Or have I remembered the language wrong? It's pretty late. Depending on the definition of circumvention (some people are maintaining fair access isn't circumvention, which is cool, although it would pretty much gut the DMCA, because most circumvention tools can probably be used for fair access), it might be that DeCSS has many non-infringing uses, yet no significant non-circumventing uses. Absent a LOC ruling, circumvention may be illegal even when not infringing (!) and circumvention tools, regardless of the LOC, may be also be illegal even when not infringing. But please, everybody, a computer program isn't a device; object code is human-readable expressive speech. Computers aren't magic, they just feel like it. > >"B. Defendants' Conduct Does Not Fall Within the Express Exemptions > >Of Section 1201, And Is Otherwise Indefensible" > > There is, in fact, one exemption that the defendants' conduct does fall > within: 1201(a) The anti-circumvention language is not effective until > the Librarian of Congress returns his report re the media exempt from > 1201. This will occur on October 28. Can someone tell me why I'm wrong > about this? Sure, because the defendants aren't been sued for circumvention, but for distributing circumvention devices. > Also, I think 1201(c)(2) would apply: "Nothing in this section shall > enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright > infringement..." > > [...] > > This trial is essentially about establishing the defendants responsible > for contributory liability of copyright infringement, call it what you'd > like, and the last I heard, selling copy machines was not illegal. ... and the defendants aren't being sued for contributory copyright infringement, either, although, if you listen to some of the plaintiffs' filings, you'd never know that. The DMCA created a new and very counterintuitive set of offenses. It took me and many other non-lawyers weeks or months to realize the scope of this, because we kept trying to understand the DMCA in terms of other laws -- "but they're _not_ infringing copyrights!" "Yes, but nobody has to infringe any copyrights here in order to incur civil liability. Welcome to the Digital Millennium." > >"III. DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE ATTEMPT TO HAVE THIS > >COURT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT ON MATTERS ALREADY CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS > >IN ITS ENACTMENT OF THE DMCA " > > Isn't that the federal judicial system's job? Not if you _like_ what Congress did for your industry... -- 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 Jun 12 05:01:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA29382 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:01:25 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA29379 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:01:23 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131Q7l-0000iu-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:03:13 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:03:13 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000612020313.D722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 11:36:12AM +0300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sampo A Syreeni writes: > That is the common problem with still pictures. Current watermarking schemes > rely on embeddings which are far from scale/rotation invariant. Blurring > should affect a well designed watermark, however. With audio and video, the > situation is completely different. In addition to the vast amounts of unseen > information present in digital video and audio (remember, the best audio > codecs can throw away something like 14/15 of the data before being > noticed; that 14/15 could in principle be filled with watermarking > data) mean that watermarks are easy to put in. In addition, affine > invariance is not a problem since we can rely on the time dimension instead > (that cannot be scaled arbitrarily without killing the essence of the work). What if you decompress, resample, and recompress with a different lossy codec? (I have no idea, I'm just wondering.) -- 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 Jun 12 05:23:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA29522 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:23:48 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA29519 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:23:47 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA23374 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:25:26 -0500 Message-ID: <3944AD04.41917B56@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:27:32 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use 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 apologize for this late-night flood, but I'm starting to read related documents such as the dvd-discuss FAQ, still getting up to speed. According to the FAQ, the Xing player key may be revoked and newly minted DVDs may be unplayable with this key. Has anyone confirmed this? It strikes me as a non-infringing use for a licensee of the Xing software with the revoked key to use DeCSS (or an enhanced relative thereof) to play DVDs that are now unplayable by their software non grata. Should any CSS-licensee lose their license in the future, the same argument would apply to their deprecated software. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 05:38:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA29923 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:38:04 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA29920 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:38:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5C9doA14878 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:39:50 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:39:49 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Slight OT [was: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines] 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 Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Ole Craig wrote: >> Especially after the big mergers in the content production business that >> have been happening over the past few years. This would be a prime feast for >> some investigative journalist on how large conglomerates control the >> public's image about sensitive topics. >[...] > > Mm. At the risk of sounding paranoid and conspiracy-minded... >Where do you suggest our intrepid journalist should publish? And >what's to say such stories haven't been run, and discounted by the >general populace because publications that are independent enough to >run such a piece are also looked upon as somehow less "legitimate" >than e.g. Time Magazine or the New York Times, precisely because they >don't have backing from a multinational media giant? True enough. I do follow stuff like FAIR, GILC, StateWatch, ACLU, Amnesty and so on. Human rights, civil liberty, privacy, conspiracies... I just meant this begins to sound like one more thing to put into the books and wait to become relevant. You know, when children of the 2040's want grandpa to tell what it was like to trade music with friends. >For interesting reading, see e.g. >http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/time-warner.html, or anything else >on the FAIR site for that matter. Not much new there. Interesting, though. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 06:17:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA30214 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:17:17 -0400 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA30211 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:17:16 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniiec.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.73.204]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA12272 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:19:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006121019.GAA12272@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:15:37 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time In-Reply-To: <39449DA1.B718DB80@mninter.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 Chris Moseng wrote: >BTW-I hope you all know that the Library of congress is accepting >post-hearing comments until June 23. Has this list considered crafting >something? Did anyone go to the hearings? They were not surprisingly >unreported by the media. Hearings were held in DC and California, and Robin Gross EFF, for one, testified: http://cryptome.org/dmca-eff.htm The underreporting by the media, and more importantly, the slanted reporting in favor of MPAA's (and RIAA's) battle to protect and advance corporate copyright, should be kept in mind. There is a vast industry based on this policy, and it drools with lust at the global market being engendered by the Internet. This prejudice is fed by fears of free content on the Net, in particular elimination of mediators between creative artists and consumers. Remember that journalists are mediators and never provide the content they write about, indeed, they believe their mediation is valuable content, as with critics and Top Ten listers, and awards granters, and ET, and the plethora of promoters of other people's content. Edward Rothstein, in The New York Times Saturday, as only one example, bemoaned piracy on the Net, almost in perfect synchrony with Frederick Fisher's declaration on June 2. Yesterday, in the Times Magazine, Andrew Sullivan wrote a parody of "dot-communism" in which everybody gives away their creative content and nobdy makes money. If you review mainstream, and not quite mainstream, you will find that the majority of news reports on free (termed "pirated") content is opposed. Yet, most TV and most online media is now giving away their content to readers in order to attract viewers of advertising. And in all cases, there are fierce proclamations of respect for the 1st amendment, as if MPAA and the media are reading from the same Janus-faced script. This duplicity reminds me of the proponents of government access to encryption keys who metronomicly juxtapose the consitutional right to privacy with the need to protect national security. Mere verbal juxtaposition of incompatibles -- a sure sign of lying and subterfuge -- is a long-lived practice of advertisers, and, most importantly, corporations, which from their beginning took the privileges of the corporeal person but escaped personal responsibility. What pisses me is journalists who blame their corporate bosses for obnoxious editorial policy, even as they say "I personally agree with you." To be sure attorneys are likely to say the same about judges and "the law of the land." As I, an architect, say about building codes and professional licensure. Got to eat, right? Let me juxtapose for you the facts of the matter. Still, there is creativity, and there is courage, those wonderful abilities to surpass the status quo, to defy the ways things are: the corporate comfort zone, the law of precedent, the fear of being singled out for misbehaving, being sued by deep-pocketed vultures. Not much good has happened in the world, especially in the US (even founding the nation), without creative courage to go against conventional wisdom and the hegemony of the day's power wielders. Recall Dario Fo being awarded the Nobel Prize for his lifetime of defying authority in plays and literature and public protests. Thrown in jail again and again, fined, stigmatized, even physically assaulted I believe, for his unrelenting opposition to establishment vainglory and criminal corruption. His main weapons were ridicule and humor, entertainment well beyond the kind seen on TV, more like what you see on the Internet, profane, disrespectful, not at all in conformance with corporate/governmental policy. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 09:19:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA31195 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:19:38 -0400 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 JAA31192 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:19:37 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-21.suba.com [206.69.121.213]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA18104 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:21:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:20:53 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <3944AD04.41917B56@mninter.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chris wrote: > > I apologize for this late-night flood, but I'm starting to read related > documents such as the dvd-discuss FAQ, still getting up to speed. > > According to the FAQ, the Xing player key may be revoked and newly > minted DVDs may be unplayable with this key. > > Has anyone confirmed this? > > It strikes me as a non-infringing use for a licensee of the Xing > software with the revoked key to use DeCSS (or an enhanced relative > thereof) to play DVDs that are now unplayable by their software non > grata. I think this will not help us.. mainly because DeCSS isn't a player, but a decryptor. it deposits decrypted copies of the DVD movie on your hard drive. Not saying this wouldn't allow the playing of the movie, after it was decrypted, but it still runs afoul of the MPAA's claim to have the authority to deny any momentary access under 1201. (momentary = an instance of access, as opposed to persistent = an "access" granted from one point in time forward, e.g. an access granted by sale of a medium. personal terms which I've started using in my efforts to understand the ins and outs of the paracopyright/copyright relation.) The whole problem here is to determine exactly *what* the relation is between paracopyright and copyright. There seems to be no clear way of doing this. Your scenario assumes that paracopyright cannot restrict rights on the level of copyright, but the MPAA points to this assumption and says "wrong". We need first a way of seeing how to balance the two, easily explainable, assuming nothing. it would be good if we could come up with some way which follows from the law itself, I think. A fairly solid implied relationship? sparky > > Should any CSS-licensee lose their license in the future, the same > argument would apply to their deprecated software. > > Chris > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 10:30:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31650 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:30:59 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA31647 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:30:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 5198 invoked by uid 502); 12 Jun 2000 14:39:50 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:39:50 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612103950.H24570@linuxpower.org> References: <3944AD04.41917B56@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <3944AD04.41917B56@mninter.net>; from Chris Moseng on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:27:32AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:27:32AM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > I apologize for this late-night flood, but I'm starting to read related > documents such as the dvd-discuss FAQ, still getting up to speed. > > According to the FAQ, the Xing player key may be revoked and newly > minted DVDs may be unplayable with this key. > > Has anyone confirmed this? We don't know at this point. Xing would have to be tested with a freshly released DVD. If anyone out there has a copy of the Xing player (or DeCSS, for that matter, since it remains built around the Xing key), do us a favor and see if it works with a DVD like "Dogma", which only recently was released. The theory is that if a key is broken, it gets revoked; no new DVD's are released based on that key, so those DVD's are unusable for the broken key. We don't know for sure at this time whether the Xing key has been formally revoked. It's sort of assumption. > It strikes me as a non-infringing use for a licensee of the Xing > software with the revoked key to use DeCSS (or an enhanced relative > thereof) to play DVDs that are now unplayable by their software non > grata. Good point. > Should any CSS-licensee lose their license in the future, the same > argument would apply to their deprecated software. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 11:52:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA32403 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:52:59 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA32400 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:52:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20000612155417.10844.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:54:17 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:54:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time 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: > Counter 2: even if the law doesn't make any sense, it still doesn't > mention fair access, so why should the Court believe the defendants > when they say that fair access exists in the law? If this reasoning were correct, then if section 107 were removed, then fair use would no longer exist, which is false. Since Constitutional requirements constrain the interpretation of the law, the burden is on Congress to fully state their intention, otherwise Courts should interpret on the side of liberty. Fair use was first created in 1841, a full 135 years before it was finally 'restated' in the Copyright Act, so the "Congress didn't say it exists so it doesn't exist" argument is pure fiction. In fact, no text in the law explicitly denies the existence of fair access, the LOC parts clearly support it, and the legislative history, among them Bliley's comments, imply that such a concept probably does exist. A judge should always interpret laws to avoid Constitutional questions - so actually the stronger argument is that Congress didn't say fair access doesn't exist, so of course it exists. The least restrictive means principle requires this. "Justice Story introduced the concept of an exception to the law of copyright for fair uses in 1841. See Folsom v. March, 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841). [...] Expressed as such, fair use continued as exclusively a judge-made doctrine until the enactment of the 1976 Copyright Act, in which Justice Story's words were codified" Sony v. Bleem, No. 99-17137 (9th Cir. 2000) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9917137 > But you're right: the argument doesn't assume what the plaintiffs say > it does. It assumes that the user of DeCSS _may_ have purchased... What other scenario is there? The user could have stolen the DVD, I guess. Since this is already illegal, there shouldn't be a burden on DeCSS distributors because of it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 11:54:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA32532 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:54:57 -0400 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 LAA32529 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:54:56 -0400 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 IAA20994 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:54:27 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA05535; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:53:36 -0700 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] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: 12 Jun 2000 08:52:30 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 9 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8i30vu$5cp$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <39445D43.208E800E@mindspring.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <39445D43.208E800E@mindspring.com>, Jeff Waller wrote: > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm#Gronich > > She really doesn't know much about the technology huh? Take > for instance her statement that mpeg can be compressed and then > transmitted, and DeCSS enables copying. What's wrong with that statement? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 11:57:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00402 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:57:24 -0400 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 LAA00399 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:57:23 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA15455 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:59:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:59:12 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612105912.A15341@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <3944AD04.41917B56@mninter.net> <20000612103950.H24570@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <20000612103950.H24570@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:39:50AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:39:50AM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:27:32AM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > > > It strikes me as a non-infringing use for a licensee of the Xing > > software with the revoked key to use DeCSS (or an enhanced relative > > thereof) to play DVDs that are now unplayable by their software non > > grata. > > Good point. > I think rather than specifically investigating Xing, this argument has more power if it's generalized: 1. Imagine if key revokation were used as a club to force player upgrades against the desire of consumers. Solution: reverse-engineered players. 2. Imagine if threats of key revokation were used as a threat to extract new revenues from CSS licensees. A company might choose to use the reverse-engineered CSS code rather than place itself under DVDCCA's thumb. 3. CSS keys _could_ be used as region codes. Imagine if North American DVDs were burned with one set of keys and European DVDs with another set. This may be planned for next year and we'd never know it. Only with unlicensed players could this be prevented. *note: before anybody jumps out and says "hey, they can't play these games because there's only 400 possible player keys", let me point out that only 400 keys can be present on a disc at one time. By retiring old keys, localizing keys to a region, and future backup keys included in consumer DVD players, I think that space would be enough to accomplish the tricks described above. What if consumer-electronics DVD players all have region-specific player keys sitting idle inside, waiting for the original keys to be retired? Cue conspiracy theorists. Anyway, the point is that escaping the DVDCCA key management prison may be a worthwhile goal in itself. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 12:02:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00513 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:02:00 -0400 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 MAA00510 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:01:59 -0400 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA05666 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:03:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use In-Reply-To: <20000612103950.H24570@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, 12 Jun 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > We don't know at this point. Xing would have to be tested with a freshly > released DVD. If anyone out there has a copy of the Xing player (or DeCSS, > for that matter, since it remains built around the Xing key), do us a favor > and see if it works with a DVD like "Dogma", which only recently was > released. I don't have "Dogma" but I do have "Being John Malkovich." I have tested it using oms, DeCSS 1.21b, ATI DVD 3.0 (Cinemaster), and PowerDVD. Since I have both limited time, and limited hard drive space, I tested Vts_05_1.vob from that disk. VTS_05_1.vob has a file size of 1048544, which uually indicate that it part of the main feature. I also tested oms and DeCSS with "Saving Private Ryan." Succesful play from disk with oms, successful play from DeCSS output file with ATI 3.0 Results: oms: crashed upon reading the disk. ATI 3.0, from disk: successful DeCSS: transfer sucessful. ATI from output file: Cannot open file. PowerDVD 2.5, from output file: Corrupted Picture and sound. Some elements of thevideo were visible. Most were obscured by green artifacts. Player crashed due to acess violation soon afterwards. PowerDVD 2.5, from disk: Moderately successful. Slight greenish cast. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 12:03:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00583 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:03:28 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA00580 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:03:27 -0400 Message-ID: <20000612160447.2387.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:04:47 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:04:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use 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 --- Chris Moseng wrote: > According to the FAQ, the Xing player key may be revoked and newly > minted DVDs may be unplayable with this key. > > Has anyone confirmed this? It's true, but irrelevant. There are three kinds of key used to decrypt the DVD: player, disk, and title key. As I understand it, there are 409 different player keys and the disk keys are stored redundantly for each. Frank Stevenson's analysis makes it possible to obtain all 409 player keys using only the DVD in under a minute - so it doesn't really matter if they change any of the player keys anymore. In fact, I think someone said that one of the newer versions of the tools used by LiViD actually uses this method instead of actually distributing the Xing key. I haven't confirmed this, but if so, they could change all the keys on every DVD and it wouldn't matter. > It strikes me as a non-infringing use for a licensee of the Xing > software with the revoked key to use DeCSS (or an enhanced relative > thereof) to play DVDs that are now unplayable by their software non > grata. Hmmm. Interesting point. I think it's only true if you don't need an "authorized" player, though. I'm not aware of any keys having been de-authorized, so it may only be a theoretical argument at present. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 12:06:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00655 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:06:58 -0400 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 MAA00652 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:06:57 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA15497 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:08:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:08:46 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612110846.B15341@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000612160447.2387.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <20000612160447.2387.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:04:47AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:04:47AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > In fact, I think someone said that one of the newer versions of the > tools used by LiViD actually uses this method instead of actually > distributing the Xing key. I haven't confirmed this, but if so, they > could change all the keys on every DVD and it wouldn't matter. The FAQ used to say this but, as of a month ago, it wasn't true, so we removed it. Your point is still correct, of course, as I'm sure someone will implement it eventually. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 12:11:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00897 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:11:52 -0400 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 MAA00894 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:11:50 -0400 Received: from ip236.bedford3.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.11.236]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 131WqJ-0003Bi-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:13:40 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Slight OT [was: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines] Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:07:47 -0400 Message-ID: <832akskromm8b7s8eh6e3dq4cvk3k4bjjl@4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 MAA00895 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:39:49 +0300 (EET DST), Sampo A Syreeni wrote: >wait to become relevant. You know, when children of the 2040's want grandpa >to tell what it was like to trade music with friends. Or even to listen to music without their "For Your Eyes Only" AC3 video shades. IR networking will hook into a DRM server for letting them hang with their homies.... Hell, even live acts will probably play through DRM recorders in clubs if the marketing goes well. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 12:23:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01385 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:23:25 -0400 Received: from dial192.roadrunner.com (dial192.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.192] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01382 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:23:21 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial192.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00815 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:25:15 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:25:14 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612102513.A560@localhost> References: <39449DA1.B718DB80@mninter.net> <20000612020040.C722@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000612020040.C722@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:00:40AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:00:40AM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Chris Moseng writes: [ ... ] > > Lastly, because the number of legitimately owned DVDs exceeds the number > > of pirated DVDs, am I wrong in asserting that DeCSS has substantial > > non-infringing uses with the assumption of fair-use, protected even by > > the DMCA, and that trafficking may be legal despite its DMCA-illegal > > function? > > Where does the DMCA protect fair use? > > It says you can distribute something that has non-circumvention uses, > which is not the same as non-infringing uses. Or have I remembered > the language wrong? It's pretty late. You remember correctly. > Depending on the definition of circumvention (some people are > maintaining fair access isn't circumvention, which is cool, although > it would pretty much gut the DMCA, because most circumvention tools > can probably be used for fair access), it might be that DeCSS has many > non-infringing uses, yet no significant non-circumventing uses. > Absent a LOC ruling, circumvention may be illegal even when not > infringing (!) and circumvention tools, regardless of the LOC, may be > also be illegal even when not infringing. I think one should be careful with the phrase "fair access", particularly if one wants to make a "isn't circumvention" argument. Presumably "fair access" is a phrase chosen for some value as an analogy with "fair use". The classification of the uses of expressive material in Seltzer's book (no relation to Wendy) on Fair Use is: (1) Authorized (2) Unauthorized (a) Fair use (b) Infringing use (3) Non-copyright use That's four categories. Non-copyright uses are those uses that fall outside the scope of section 106, either because the material is in the public domain or the use isn't listed as an exclusive right. Taken in conjunction with the L. Hand quote about what is left out of the copyright statute is as important as what is written into it, this suggests that non-copyright uses exist (i) Because the First Amendment forbids their inclusion in the statute, (ii) Because limited times forces things into the public domain, (iii) Because "promote progress" might forbid the regulation of a use. Section 1201(a) is a big, high fence that goes almost, but not quite, all the way around the four uses. Not quite all the way because public domain works are not regulated by 1201. But, access control does cover large parts of non-copyright use, even if it doesn't get all of them. In my view, calling something "fair access" is prejudging some *critically* important and as-yet-to-be-determined issues. If there is either a right to access inherent in the First Amendment which is immune to the copyright clause carve-out, or if "promote progress" contains a prohibition on the regulation of access, then there is no such thing as fair access because access is beyond Congress' power to regulate. I've been cheating here just a bit, because the right not to publish is in fact an access control. I believe that is a highly significant point, because access controls have been implicit in the right not to publish, and 1201 represents a radical departure from that status-quo. Anyway, I was white-washing that point because I don't think it is particularly pertinent to why I think we should avoid the phrase "fair access". If the outcome of this litigation is that the USSC (yes, I think this case is going there, on P's appeal), says that access may be regulated after publication, then there may in fact be a need for something like "fair access". I'm trying to say that I don't think this outcome is certain. If for some reason one did want to argue that fair access exists (i.e. granting the P's the constitutionality of access controls after publication) then the fact that 1201(c) contains no exception for non-copyright use analogous to the "shall not affect fair use" language is arguably a reviewable defect in the law. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 12:39:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01570 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:39:58 -0400 Received: from dial253.roadrunner.com (dial253.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.253] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01567 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:39:56 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial253.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01101 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:41:56 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:41:55 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612104155.B560@localhost> References: <3944AD04.41917B56@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3944AD04.41917B56@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:27:32AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:27:32AM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > I apologize for this late-night flood, but I'm starting to read related > documents such as the dvd-discuss FAQ, still getting up to speed. > > According to the FAQ, the Xing player key may be revoked and newly > minted DVDs may be unplayable with this key. > > Has anyone confirmed this? > > It strikes me as a non-infringing use for a licensee of the Xing > software with the revoked key to use DeCSS (or an enhanced relative > thereof) to play DVDs that are now unplayable by their software non > grata. "Revoked" means that the player key is no longer used to encrypt disk keys, not that the players no longer contain the old player key. They do. This clearly makes the revocation proceedure a regulation of the player market. You point is also important if you want to take it in the direction of an impermissible delegation by Congress. The old disks are playable in new players, but that is at the pleasure of the DVD-CCA/studios. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 13:01:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01875 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:01:58 -0400 Received: from dial168.roadrunner.com (dial168.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.168] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA01872 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:01:53 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial168.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01241 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:03:53 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:03:53 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612110352.C560@localhost> References: <20000612160447.2387.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000612160447.2387.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:04:47AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:04:47AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Chris Moseng wrote: > > According to the FAQ, the Xing player key may be revoked and newly > > minted DVDs may be unplayable with this key. > > > > Has anyone confirmed this? > > It's true, but irrelevant. There are three kinds of key used to decrypt > the DVD: player, disk, and title key. As I understand it, there are 409 > different player keys and the disk keys are stored redundantly for > each. Frank Stevenson's analysis makes it possible to obtain all 409 > player keys using only the DVD in under a minute - so it doesn't really > matter if they change any of the player keys anymore. I haven't verified this to be true, but my understanding is that the compiled versions of DeCSS available on the net use the Xing key. So far as I know, none of them break the cipher at run time. > In fact, I think someone said that one of the newer versions of the > tools used by LiViD actually uses this method instead of actually > distributing the Xing key. I haven't confirmed this, but if so, they > could change all the keys on every DVD and it wouldn't matter. I examined the LiViD sources a while back, and they contain a set of player keys. It does not break the cipher at run-time. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 13:06:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02020 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:06:34 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02017 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:06:33 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 131XhG-0002cT-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:08:22 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 131XhH-0000za-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:08:23 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:08:23 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612190822.A31953@inka.de> References: <20000612160447.2387.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000612110352.C560@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000612110352.C560@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 11:03:53AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > I haven't verified this to be true, but my understanding is that the > compiled versions of DeCSS available on the net use the Xing key. > > So far as I know, none of them break the cipher at run time. > I examined the LiViD sources a while back, and they contain a set of > player keys. It does not break the cipher at run-time. I've checked the LiViD sources as well and they don't identify the xing key in the list, does anyone know which one it is? Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 13:30:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02555 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:30:05 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02551 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:30:04 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW1005CUXZPXJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:31:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:03:35 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use In-reply-to: <20000612103950.H24570@linuxpower.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW1005CXXZPXJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3944AD04.41917B56@mninter.net>; from Chris Moseng on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:27:32AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:27:32AM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > > I apologize for this late-night flood, but I'm starting to read related > > documents such as the dvd-discuss FAQ, still getting up to speed. > > > > According to the FAQ, the Xing player key may be revoked and newly > > minted DVDs may be unplayable with this key. > > > > Has anyone confirmed this? Well personally, I know second hand from discussing this with a CSS licensee. I think a skilled cryptographer could probably look at the scheme and decide whether or not such a mechanism was build into CSS as well. (Is that a homework-level question?) > We don't know at this point. Xing would have to be tested with a freshly > released DVD. If anyone out there has a copy of the Xing player (or DeCSS, > for that matter, since it remains built around the Xing key), do us a favor > and see if it works with a DVD like "Dogma", which only recently was > released. A reasonable thing to try. BTW, who makes the Xing player? Perhaps its as simple as checking their we page under tech support to see if there are any "mandatory upgrades" required. > The theory is that if a key is broken, it gets revoked; no new DVD's are > released based on that key, so those DVD's are unusable for the broken key. > We don't know for sure at this time whether the Xing key has been formally > revoked. It's sort of assumption. There is also an earlier player from Comp core upon which a weaker hack was performed (it just hacked into the player's internal API and captured the decrypted output). I don't remember the details of this, however, I think if any player's keys were likely to have been revoked it would be theirs. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 13:30:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02561 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:30:06 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02554 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:30:05 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW1005CUXZPXJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:31:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:03:35 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-reply-to: <8i30vu$5cp$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW1005CVXZPXJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 article <39445D43.208E800E@mindspring.com>, > Jeff Waller wrote: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm#Gronich > > > > She really doesn't know much about the technology huh? Take > > for instance her statement that mpeg can be compressed and then > > transmitted, and DeCSS enables copying. > > What's wrong with that statement? Well, its an information theory thing. Usually, data which is compressed once will not compress very well when you try to compress it again. As a simple experiment you can try to compress any .ZIP files that you might have on your system to see this. .VOB's contain huffman compressed MPEG streams. Compressing them would yeild very little savings. Besides, it is yet another manipulation of a 5GB file which is very *slow*. Of course, it could be re-encoded with a more lossy compression scheme to reduce its size, but that's another thread entirely. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 13:55:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA04148 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:55:42 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA04145 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:55:38 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA06978 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:57:12 -0500 Message-ID: <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:57:51 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> 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 think this will not help us.. mainly because DeCSS isn't a player, >but a decryptor. it deposits decrypted copies of the DVD movie on your >hard drive. Actually, I think I've begun to manage to seperate access and playback... But I still think in this case the authorization to access the work comes with the appropriate use of a licensed DVD player (odious as the idea is). Please correct me if I'm still misunderstanding. If the Xing player was once legitimate, and this is the player I use to play back my DVDs I am granted access by operating the player. If the player is crippled in some way in the future it is a result of the CSS-licensees. The crippling in this case comes in a loss of access, as it will probably play non CSSd DVDs. The manufacturers loss of the CSS license should not have any impact on the end user unless the end user is somehow informed of the revocation of access rights (and the MPAA should come in and take it away, because it will still play OLDER movies). Unless they can explain why a manufacturer losing a license revokes the access rights of every consumer of the once legitimately-licensed product. As a matter of fact, the player was manufactured with a legit license that was then revoked retroactively. If the consumer is granted access on the one hand under the assumption that the player will last its useful lifetime, but then the useful lifetime is reduced ex post facto... Or am I focusing too much on what the consumer is allowed to assume? And if it isn't the CSS-licensed player that grants access, what does? If it is the will of the DVDCCA, shouldn't there be a more verbose explanation of the access license at the time of purchase? Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 14:07:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA05344 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:07:50 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05341 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:07:46 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08547 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:09:24 -0500 Message-ID: <39452773.BB0DEEF4@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:09:55 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.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 >If the Xing player was once legitimate, and this is the player I use >to play back my DVDs Excuse me, I meant IF this is the player I use. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 14:20:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA05515 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:20:26 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05512 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:20:23 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09899 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:22:02 -0500 Message-ID: <39452A59.24F6BD29@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:22:17 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Schumann deposition 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 Mr. Schumann understates the size of the Matrix: >A. I don't recall. It may have been, I > > 12 think, The Matrix came out around then. > > 13 Q. Do you know how big the movie was, > > 14 how many gigabytes? > > 15 A. It was 4 or 6 gigabytes. It was > > 16 probably 4 gigabytes. The Matrix DVD is exactly 7746538kB in 20 files according to DeCSS. Obviously he was doing it from memory, but it does impact the unencrypted download time. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 14:22:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA05643 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:22:36 -0400 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 OAA05639 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:22:35 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-02.suba.com [206.69.121.194]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA00731 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:24:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:23:48 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bfd49b$5a3c8bc0$f77945ce@bugbug> 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: <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.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 Chris wrote: > > >I think this will not help us.. mainly because DeCSS isn't a player, > >but a decryptor. it deposits decrypted copies of the DVD movie on your > >hard drive. > > Actually, I think I've begun to manage to seperate access and > playback... But I still think in this case the authorization to access > the work comes with the appropriate use of a licensed DVD player (odious > as the idea is). Please correct me if I'm still misunderstanding. [snip] > > And if it isn't the CSS-licensed player that grants access, what does? > If it is the will of the DVDCCA, shouldn't there be a more verbose > explanation of the access license at the time of purchase? Well, under 1201, authorization to access comes from the copyright holder. I think there is general agreement on this in forum, and therefore agmt that DVDCCA/purchase of licensed player cannot equal authorization. following this, I think the general idea is that authorization must come from purchase of the work. However, this is not spelled out in the law either, in the case of works fixed on media. Is it possible to press this issue more than we have? Revisiting Bliley's comments where he makes it clear that "paracopyright" is based on the Commerce and not the Copyright clause, is it possible to make a compelling argument that a commercial action (purchasing a DVD) consists of authorization to access the work? (I'm sure we've covered this or something very like it at some point, but someone remind me again what came of it; trying to wrap my head around the junction of para- and -copyright.) Could such an argument be assisted with language distinguishing types of access? for example "momentary" (a single instance of access, existing for the duration of a single instance of viewing/use) and "persistent" (an access authorized at a certain point in time and valid thenceforth for any number of uses)? Along the lines of "without a persistent authorization to access given along with a persistent commercial transaction (sale of work fixed on medium), the law supports a "pay-per-view" scheme in the sense that, while the copyright holder could not legally demand money from the purchaser for a given later use, they could demand an 'exchange' of some kind, for instance of information, in exchange for the authorization to access that work"..? (Although, money could probably be demanded too, despite the intentions of Bliley contra "pay-per-view", if content providers rationalized it "We are not demanding payment on a pay-per-view basis.. We are not demanding money for a use at all. We are demanding payment for authorization to access the purchased work, the old authorization no longer being valid for reasons x y z.") sparky > > Chris > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 14:30:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA05781 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:30:36 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05777 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:30:33 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA11145 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:32:06 -0500 Message-ID: <39452CA8.7CE85690@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:32:08 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use References: <000201bfd49b$5a3c8bc0$f77945ce@bugbug> 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 think it would be very enlightening to simply ask what authorizes a person to access a DVD. They must know because they are the ones authorizing. Once we know that we will know what we're dealing with. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 14:44:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA05960 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:44:20 -0400 Received: from dial181.roadrunner.com (sf-du181.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.181]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05957 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:44:17 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial181.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01583 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:46:22 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:46:21 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Dec'l Daphne Gronich, n.3 Message-ID: <20000612124620.D560@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sigh. CSS is not copy control. Let's try again. 3. I take strong exception to defendants' claim that DeCSS does not cause, contribute to or facilitate the unauthorized copying or "piracy" of motion picture films. As has been widely reported in the media, the technology already exists to compress and transmit sizeable files over the Internet, including files containing feature-length motion pictures. A number of these new technologies are explained in detail in the accompanying declaration of Robert Schumann and I respectfully refer the Court to that declaration. 1. To the extent that DeCSS "facilitate[s]" copying after access, a particular and by no means unique mode of copying, it does so exactly for the reason that it permits access, and "facilitates" copying no more and no less than is necessary to achieve the goal of access. 2. To the extent that the use of the word "facilitate" suggests that access is necessary to make a copy, the quote above is *wrong*. The simplest cryptographic means to copying is to ignore the very existence of CSS. Some copy control system! 3. The MPAA and pals like to say, "but we need to make categories of copying. The fact that we can't prevent all categories doesn't make them legal." This argument is wrong! The issue that not all categories of copying are susceptibile to technological measures is a misdirection: either the system is a copy control measure, or it isn't. It can't be a copy control on Mondays and not a control on Tuesdays. Although the existence of categories of copying might be useful in analyzing the weaknesses of a system, categories cannot be used to change the judgement that a system _is_ or _is not_ copycontrol. If one can find a way to copy that simply ignores the existence of the technological measure, then there is no point to calling the measure a copy control. If there is a thing on my front door, say a knocker, that I can *completely* and *utterly* ignore the very existence of when I gain access to the house though the front door, there is no point to calling the knocker a lock. Even if banging it gets me into the house through the front door on occassion. There are two senses in which something might be a copy control system: 1. Legally. 2. Technologically. CSS isn't copy control in a legal sense because at a minimum it fails the "in the normal course of operation" language in 1201(b). CSS isn't copy control in the technical sense because (i) technological copycontrol is a mirage, a phantom, a specter and (ii) even if I'm wrong (I'm not), you can't call something you ignore a copy control system. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 14:52:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA06136 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:52:14 -0400 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 OAA06133 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:52:13 -0400 Received: from ip99.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.99]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 131ZLX-0006WE-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:54:03 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:48:09 -0400 Message-ID: References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> In-Reply-To: <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 OAA06134 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:57:51 -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: >Or am I focusing too much on what the consumer is allowed to assume? > >And if it isn't the CSS-licensed player that grants access, what does? >If it is the will of the DVDCCA, shouldn't there be a more verbose >explanation of the access license at the time of purchase? > When I buy Skippy peanut butter, even Annette Funicello would have a hard time telling me that it's only authorized for use on Wonder bread. If there's nothing explicitly printed on the DVD packaging [and I would also require all advertisements on, say, Amazon.com] I will continue to ignore what I can't be expected to infer. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 14:59:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA06360 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:59:48 -0400 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 OAA06357 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:59:46 -0400 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 LAA21785 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:59:18 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA05741; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:58:27 -0700 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] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: 12 Jun 2000 11:57:22 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 9 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8i3bqi$5jc$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <8i30vu$5cp$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <0FW1005CVXZPXJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <0FW1005CVXZPXJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net>, Paul Hsieh wrote: > Usually, data which is compressed once > will not compress very well when you try to compress it again. You forgot about lossy compression! If you are trying to make the case that Gronich's declaration is technically weak, this seems to be a bad example to pick. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 15:10:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA06651 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:10:55 -0400 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 PAA06648 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:10:53 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-02.suba.com [206.69.121.194]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA02817 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:12:38 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:12:07 -0500 Message-ID: <000301bfd4a2$1a40ad60$f77945ce@bugbug> 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: <20000612102513.A560@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 Can someone tell me again what the non-recordable sectors of a blank DVD actually stop? Is it the region control or the access control? sparky Also, is there an eta on completely recordable blank DVDs, and can I have a cite? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 15:16:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA06772 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:16:05 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA06769 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:16:01 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 131ZiW-0005nY-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:17:48 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 131ZiX-0001rP-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:17:49 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:17:49 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612211748.A6693@inka.de> References: <20000612102513.A560@localhost> <000301bfd4a2$1a40ad60$f77945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <000301bfd4a2$1a40ad60$f77945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:12:07PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:12:07PM -0500, sparky wrote: > Can someone tell me again what the non-recordable sectors of a blank DVD > actually stop? Is it the region control or the access control? >From what I've heard it's the area used to store the decryption keys, so it's the access control. Region codes are stored in the header of each sector, so wouldn't be affected. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 15:46:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA07114 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:46:42 -0400 Received: from dial102.roadrunner.com (dial102.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.102] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA07111 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:46:38 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial102.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01875 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:48:40 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:48:39 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Gronich Dec'l, n.6 Message-ID: <20000612134839.A1735@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 6. For these reasons, I believe that it is essential that the Court prevent the wholesale proliferation of DeCSS by the defendants in this case. While my company has great respect for First Amendment rights and has no intention of trammeling on anyone's right to engage in debate, comment or criticism of anybody or anything, I do not believe that treating the proliferation of a decryption device, such as DeCSS. as an exercise in "free speech" is to anyone's long term benefit, least of all the public's. Is this an argument about posting DeCSS, or linking to DeCSS? I can't tell. If it is about posting, then the studios should address the posters directly. If this argument is about linking, then it is not about DeCSS, but about references to DeCSS. Regulation of mere references has huge First Amendment implications. It is my understanding that Congress enacted the circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act precisely to preserve the rights of copyright holders in works embodied in digital media because of the threat of unbridled duplication and transmission via digital technologies. Digitial technology may be new to the movie industry, but it isn't new to the book publishing industry, nor to copyright. The alphabet is fundamentally a digital medium of expression. Rampant piracy doesn't seem to have destroyed the book publishing industry or copyright. Electronic duplication is relatively new, and the low cost of that duplication may in fact present a threat to the business model the studios prefer, but I doubt that it threatens the institution of copyright. The cost of duplication has been falling ever since Gutenberg, yet modern copyright has survived in the English-speaking world since 1710. This protection against trafficking in circumvention devices has, at its core, the goal of encouraging artists and creators to produce works of creative expression by protecting copyrighted works from the threat of exponential digital duplication and transmission on the Internet. "This protection against a contributory violation to a contributory violation to perhaps a copyright violation ..." I put 'perhaps' in because the copyright violation comes after access, so the control has no way of addressing the violation per se. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 15:49:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA07210 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:49:31 -0400 Received: from dial102.roadrunner.com (dial102.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.102] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA07207 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:49:29 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial102.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01899 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:51:33 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:51:32 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612135132.B1735@localhost> References: <000201bfd49b$5a3c8bc0$f77945ce@bugbug> <39452CA8.7CE85690@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <39452CA8.7CE85690@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:32:08PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:32:08PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > I think it would be very enlightening to simply ask what authorizes a > person to access a DVD. Nothing the lawful owner of the disk to access it. > They must know because they are the ones authorizing. Once we know that > we will know what we're dealing with. CSS doesn't work with the authority of the copyright owner. It works with the authority of the _copy_ owner. They push the play button. The device complies. CSS isn't a 1201(a) access control. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 15:52:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA07280 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:52:02 -0400 Received: from dial102.roadrunner.com (dial102.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.102] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA07277 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:52:00 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial102.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01905 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:53:59 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:53:58 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612135358.C1735@localhost> References: <20000612102513.A560@localhost> <000301bfd4a2$1a40ad60$f77945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <000301bfd4a2$1a40ad60$f77945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:12:07PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:12:07PM -0500, sparky wrote: > Can someone tell me again what the non-recordable sectors of a blank DVD > actually stop? Is it the region control or the access control? The pre-burning means that one cannot store the disk key in the place the licensed players expect to find it. This makes it slightly more difficult to access the descrambled work. One can of course access the scrambled work, but that is less interesting in many cases ;) Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 15:57:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA07373 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:57:44 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA07370 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:57:43 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15724 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:59:34 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39453419.E0D12C21@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:03:53 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time 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 >>"Defendants' reliance on the "first sale" doctrine in this >>context (i.e., that the copyright owner has no control over >>the disposition of a lawful copy, once it has been sold), is >>sorely misplaced. First, defendants' argument assumes that anyone who >>uses DeCSS to decrypt a DVD will have purchased or otherwise lawfully >>acquired the DVD. " > > >This is an absurd statement. The same logic would outlaw any device that >can replay/reproduce copyrighted works. Copy machines, VCRs, computers >would all have to go! Not to mention record players. Under their logic, a record player would be illegal because the measure of encoding sound as a long, continuous groove in a vinyl platter ''effectively controls access to a work'' because it requires "the application" of "a process" -- the combination of a needle travelling through the groove and a specific electromechanical device/circuit that converts the vibrations of the needle into an electrical signal which can be amplified and perceived as sound -- "to gain access to the work." So what's the difference between using a record player to decode the contents of a vinyl record for personal use, and using DeCSS to decode the contents of a DVD for personal use? Near as I can tell, the only difference they are claiming is the "with the authority of the copyright holder" clause. Are they are arguing that the CSS agreement between the CSS authority and the hardware manufacturers is binding on the users of the technology, even though the agreement is secret and was never disclosed to the purchasers of DVDs or players? How can a secret agreement between two parties create related legal obligations of the part of a third party? Isn't that what they are claiming? What additional "grant of authority" is given to a person who buys a DVD player and a DVD disk, then plays the disk, that does not exist when the same person buys a record player and record and plays the record? I mean, most non-technologically savvy DVD users are probably utterly unaware that the discs are encrypted, and that, according to the manufacturers, they have no fair use right. Why would such a purchaser have any reason to believe that this particular medium doesn't come with fair use rights? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 16:00:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA07477 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:00:55 -0400 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 QAA07474 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:00:53 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (jdsl248.dnvr.uswest.net [206.196.156.248]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA10594 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394540AE.499534BD@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:57:34 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time References: <000301bfd4a2$1a40ad60$f77945ce@bugbug> 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 sparky wrote: > Can someone tell me again what the non-recordable sectors of a blank DVD > actually stop? Is it the region control or the access control? > > sparky > > Also, is there an eta on completely recordable blank DVDs, and can I have a > cite? Access control, specifically, CSS. Regional control is one byte in a sector header. There are currently two types of DVD-R media, version 1.0 (3.95 GB) and version 1.9 (4.7 GB). Version 2.0 will be split into two or possibly three different and mutually incompatible types of media. Two would have the CSS areas zeroed out. The third, which is still under discussion, would be DVD-R "Special Authoring", developed in conjunction with the MPAA and would allow the addition of CSS. However, this DVD-R media and the recorders capable of recording it would probably be restricted to licensed users. No word on when this would be available. Cite: http://www.emedialive.com/EM2000/standard6.html My sources were Jim Taylor of Microsoft and Andy Parsons of Pioneer. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 16:04:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA07588 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:04:20 -0400 Received: from dial100.roadrunner.com (sf-du100.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA07585 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:04:17 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial100.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02051 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:06:20 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:06:20 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612140619.D1735@localhost> References: <000201bfd49b$5a3c8bc0$f77945ce@bugbug> <39452CA8.7CE85690@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <39452CA8.7CE85690@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:32:08PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Oops. Almost forgot: On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:32:08PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: [ ... ] > They must know because they are the ones authorizing. Once we know that > we will know what we're dealing with. Either it isn't a 1201(a) access control, or the authorization happens at first sale. The alternatives lead to insane contradictions. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 16:07:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA07659 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:07:53 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA07656 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:07:47 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131aWd-0001jB-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:09:35 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:09:35 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612130935.F722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000612155417.10844.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000612155417.10844.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 08:54:17AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor writes: > --- Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > Counter 2: even if the law doesn't make any sense, it still doesn't > > mention fair access, so why should the Court believe the defendants > > when they say that fair access exists in the law? > > If this reasoning were correct, then if section 107 were removed, then > fair use would no longer exist, which is false. Since Constitutional > requirements constrain the interpretation of the law, the burden is on > Congress to fully state their intention, otherwise Courts should > interpret on the side of liberty. > > Fair use was first created in 1841, a full 135 years before it was > finally 'restated' in the Copyright Act, so the "Congress didn't say it > exists so it doesn't exist" argument is pure fiction. In fact, no text > in the law explicitly denies the existence of fair access, the LOC > parts clearly support it, and the legislative history, among them > Bliley's comments, imply that such a concept probably does exist. A > judge should always interpret laws to avoid Constitutional questions - > so actually the stronger argument is that Congress didn't say fair > access doesn't exist, so of course it exists. The least restrictive > means principle requires this. Is there a least restrictive means test in copyright law? How about in other (non-speech-impacting) commerce regulations? It would be neat to see all of CFR challenged as not being the least restrictive means of accomplishing various objectives, but I don't think that would work. The plaintiffs are very big on deference to Congress. It would be interesting to see how they would react if Congress passed a law regulating violent movies. I'm pretty sure that, in the present case, they would say (and probably _have_ said) that fair use exists only because of 107, which has no bearing on circumvention at all. > > But you're right: the argument doesn't assume what the plaintiffs say > > it does. It assumes that the user of DeCSS _may_ have purchased... > > What other scenario is there? The user could have stolen the DVD, I > guess. Since this is already illegal, there shouldn't be a burden on > DeCSS distributors because of it. The user could have purchased an illegal copy (or been given one by a friend, now potentially illegal after LaMacchia). Yeah, DeCSS isn't relevant to that scenario in any way. If you have an illegal copy, you could already play it just fine in a licensed player! Except maybe they are saying that DeCSS can be used to decrypt the encrypted VOBs that might have been burned to a consumer-grade DVD (or posted to the net) by someone who was _not_ a DeCSS user, and just did "tar czf /tmp/my-dvd.tar.gz /mnt/dvd/video_ts/". (This first step wouldn't be 1201(a) circumvention, just plain old illegal copying.) That person would then assume that the recipient would be able to decrypt CSS-encrypted VOBs. In my understanding, once again at http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/dvdtable.html there is no known technique to decrypt a VOB in isolation, without access to the actual DVD it came from. And DeCSS certainly doesn't do this -- you can't just give it a VOB on a hard drive and get out another VOB. -- 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 Jun 12 16:10:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA07756 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:10:30 -0400 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 QAA07753 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:10:29 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-02.suba.com [206.69.121.194]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA05175 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:12:15 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:11:43 -0500 Message-ID: <000601bfd4aa$6dbd13e0$f77945ce@bugbug> 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: <20000612135358.C1735@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 Paul wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:12:07PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > Can someone tell me again what the non-recordable sectors of a blank DVD > > actually stop? Is it the region control or the access control? > > The pre-burning means that one cannot store the disk key in the place > the licensed players expect to find it. > > This makes it slightly more difficult to access the descrambled work. > One can of course access the scrambled work, but that is less interesting > in many cases ;) I think accessing the scrambled work is *very* interesting.. Schumann makes a lot about the advance of technology which will enable piracy when used with a decryptor (compression tech, hig-speed internet). I think we can play the same game. DiBona says that licensed players can make copies of data on DVDs, which is still encrypted. Seems to me that there is no reason to decrypt that data, as RS makes it sound like there must be, when there is recourse to playing the encrypted copy. A pirate would make an encrypted copy, distribute it over those oh-so-common 100Mbps connections, along with instructions on how to burn a copy onto a blank DVD. Of course, there are those burned-out sectors on the blank DVD. But, that makes CSS itself very fragile; the only reason it is effective as a protection (by which I mean, the only way we could contrue it as protecting a copyright holder's right) is because the fabrication of blank DVDs are controlled by the same people who control CSS. It's an artificial protection. This seems problematic along the lines of tying, but probably is decribed in legal parlance slightly differently. NOTE, I understand that this scenario does not point out a current danger of piracy. The point of the argument is to address plaintiff's point that a decryptor facilitates piracy, when used in conjunction with other tech. In fact, as tech progresses, the decryptor will become less important, not more. In *fact*, if there were/are completely blank DVDs available for purchase, decryptors' importance would drop to zero immediately. Decryption is not necessary when there is a means to make an encrypted copy and play that encrypted copy. Specific question: is it possible to point to the detail of the burned-out sectors of a blank DVD as immaterial to the question of the importance of a decryptor for piracy? sparky > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 16:10:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA07765 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:10:45 -0400 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 QAA07762 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:10:43 -0400 Received: from ip99.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.99]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 131aZU-0001Fs-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:12:33 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:06:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: <39453419.E0D12C21@uic.edu> In-Reply-To: <39453419.E0D12C21@uic.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 QAA07763 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:03:53 -0500, John Schulien wrote: >What additional "grant of authority" is given to a person >who buys a DVD player and a DVD disk, then plays the >disk, that does not exist when the same person buys a record >player and record and plays the record? Similarly, what is the status of rappers who scratch records backwards, or children who play 45s at 78rpm? Might a publisher say that skimming a book is disallowed--that every page must be read according to the numbers? "Authorized" DVD players have the same status as candidates authorized by the libertarian party, or movies authorized by the Catholic Legion of Decency. Feel free to ignore. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 16:18:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA07892 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:18:24 -0400 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 QAA07889 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:18:23 -0400 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 NAA22124 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:17:55 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA05821; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:17:03 -0700 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] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Date: 12 Jun 2000 13:15:57 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 7 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8i3gdt$5ls$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000612102513.A560@localhost> <000301bfd4a2$1a40ad60$f77945ce@bugbug> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <000301bfd4a2$1a40ad60$f77945ce@bugbug>, sparky wrote: > Can someone tell me again what the non-recordable sectors of a blank DVD > actually stop? Is it the region control or the access control? It prevents bit-for-bit copying of CSS-encrypted movies using consumer-grade recorders and consumer-grade blank discs. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 16:31:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA08054 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:31:39 -0400 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 QAA08051 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:31:37 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-02.suba.com [206.69.121.194]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA06029 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:33:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:32:55 -0500 Message-ID: <000701bfd4ad$63db2440$f77945ce@bugbug> 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: <000601bfd4aa$6dbd13e0$f77945ce@bugbug> 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 I wrote: :p > > Specific question: is it possible to point to the detail of the burned-out > sectors of a blank DVD as immaterial to the question of the > importance of a > decryptor for piracy? rephrase (or additional phrasing): is it possible to point to the detail of the burned-out sectors of a blank DVD as material to the question of CSS ability to protect rights of the copyright holder, that is to correlate the two negatively? sp From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 16:42:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA08399 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:42:57 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA08396 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:42:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 7404 invoked by uid 502); 12 Jun 2000 20:51:54 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:51:54 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org> References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net>; from Chris Moseng on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:57:51PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:57:51PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > >I think this will not help us.. mainly because DeCSS isn't a player, > >but a decryptor. it deposits decrypted copies of the DVD movie on your > >hard drive. > > Actually, I think I've begun to manage to seperate access and > playback... But I still think in this case the authorization to access > the work comes with the appropriate use of a licensed DVD player (odious > as the idea is). Please correct me if I'm still misunderstanding. "appropriate use of a licensed DVD player".. hmm. Who then has the final say as to what an "appropriate" use entails? Either way, we're still at the basic crux - only the copyright owner has the right to "authorize" anything regarding their work, within the limits defined by 17 USC. Since the makers of most (if not all) DVD players on the market are not the copyright owners of the material on DVD, they *can't* give authorization. They don't have the legal right. An alternative argument would be that it is somehow implicit in the individual DVD license (on the disk itself, not the player) that decryption is only "authorized" via a licensed DVD player. That is where we get back to the "for private home use only" argument, which points out that *none* of this is spelled out on the DVD itself. "Authority" is an interesting avenue at any rate. > If the Xing player was once legitimate, and this is the player I use to > play back my DVDs I am granted access by operating the player. If the > player is crippled in some way in the future it is a result of the > CSS-licensees. The crippling in this case comes in a loss of access, as > it will probably play non CSSd DVDs. The manufacturers loss of the CSS > license should not have any impact on the end user unless the end user > is somehow informed of the revocation of access rights (and the MPAA > should come in and take it away, because it will still play OLDER > movies). There is an interesting point here regarding key revocation. Since apparently key revocation would be done by the DVDCCA, revoking a player key would not constitute "unauthorizing" access since they aren't the copyright holder. I've got to think on this one some more. There's a fault line here, and I have a feeling it runs rather deep. Paul, any thoughts? > Unless they can explain why a manufacturer losing a license revokes the > access rights of every consumer of the once legitimately-licensed > product. As a matter of fact, the player was manufactured with a legit > license that was then revoked retroactively. If the consumer is granted > access on the one hand under the assumption that the player will last > its useful lifetime, but then the useful lifetime is reduced ex post > facto... > > Or am I focusing too much on what the consumer is allowed to assume? I don't think it's *possible* to focus too much on this point. > And if it isn't the CSS-licensed player that grants access, what does? > If it is the will of the DVDCCA, shouldn't there be a more verbose > explanation of the access license at the time of purchase? If you mean "grants authority" (a different issue than simply granting access), the only powers that can do that are the copyright owners. In other words, the members of the MPAA. Unless the DVDCCA (basically Matsushita/Panasonic) suddenly acquired copyright privileges over the films themselves, they don't have the power. No doubt this is why the DVDCCA is fighting a trade secret case and the MPAA is fighting the DMCA case. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 16:52:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA09046 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:52:58 -0400 Received: from web510.mail.yahoo.com (web510.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA09042 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:52:57 -0400 Message-ID: <20000612205417.1819.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:54:17 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:54:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use 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 --- Chris Moseng wrote: > I think it would be very enlightening to simply ask what authorizes a > person to access a DVD. > > They must know because they are the ones authorizing. Once we know > that we will know what we're dealing with. The problem is that they'll give an answer with the benefit of hindsight. They'd say something like "An authorized access occurs when a purchased DVD is viewed on an authorized player". Here's how I would try it: Q: Does it say anywhere on the DVD that it can only be viewed on an authorized player? A: Yes, in the invisible print between the lines. Besides, it says so in the law, even if Congress didn't phrase is the way we paid for it to say - we did pay for it, and by first sale, we own the law Q: So an ordinary consumer would have no way to know that you believe you have placed this restriction on their access A: Well of course they know. You're not suggesting that consumers can do anything without explicit authorization are you? Besides, it's OBVIOUS that you need authorization from both player and DVD. Q: The player software licence says explicitly that it does NOT authorize playing, doesn't it A: We're the MPAA -- we can't help if others misunderstand us, that's their problem, especially if they're stupid consumers. Geez these people can make their own movies if they want to watch them on their precious linux systems. The player licence means unless you have the DVD, duh. Do we have to spell this stuff out for you morons? Q: But the DVD does say the consumer may use the DVD "for home viewing only" A: Yes, but we didn't really mean it, we mean in an authorized viewer. Q: Is it not true that one use of DeCSS would be to facilitate "home viewing" in conjunction with an ordinary mpeg2 player? A: No, pirates do not have homes - they live on ships with 100BaseT network cards that can share our movies in 7 minutes. Q: And still after several hundred thousand downloads of DeCSS, you are not aware of any other use besides such "home viewing" that has actually occured. A: That's not true, we paid someone to pirate a DVD, several times. And again, no consumers actually own homes -- they usually lease. Even when they do live in a house, it's licenced from the bank -- no first sale of the house actually existed. Q: The DVDCCA makes money from fees associated with the player technology, do they not? A: No, the technology is actually a free gift that can only be had after a fixed size donation to the DVDCCA, a non-profit and reputable charity. Q: So the DVD doesn't explain the tying of permission to the player, and the player licence says the player doesn't authorize access, but you say that it's "obvious" that authority requires both. A: I don't like that word "tying". We prefer the term "authorzied", as in you need both, because it's obvious that you need both. Q: If I said that the authorization to use the DVD is "tied" to the purchase of a separate product (the player), would I be wrong? A: Tying, no we're not "tying". Are you kidding - we're the MPAA, our movies couldn't be seen at home if we didn't do it that way. Q: But the MPAA's members do offer movies on VCR and even authorize broadcasting over TV networks - don't these unprotected forms contradict what you just said. A: I didn't say that, it's so silly that you think I said that. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 16:53:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA09053 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:53:04 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA09050 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:53:03 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25843 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:54:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3945410C.33CFCFF6@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:59:09 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 >> She really doesn't know much about the technology huh? Take >> for instance her statement that mpeg can be compressed and then >> transmitted, and DeCSS enables copying. > > What's wrong with that statement? The first part is technically inaccurate, or at the very least misleading. MPEG is already a compressed format. One of the basic "facts of life" about compression is that, with few exceptions, compressed data is itself uncompressable. That's the entire point of compression. You've taken out as much redundancy as you can. What she is implying with this hand-waving exercise, is that using DeCSS is like ripping a CD -- that once you've decoded the 5GB of encrypted DVD data, you have something that can be significantly compressed ,transmitted over the internet, and viewed with little perceived loss in signal quality -- like an MP3. In reality, once you decode a 5GB encrypted MPEG file, you wind up with a 5GB unencrypted MPEG file, that can not be compressed at all without seriously, heavily degrading the quality of the sound and image by use of a program like the divx utility. That's what's misleading about her statement. As for whether DeCSS enables copying, there are other programs that allow access to the UDF filesystem, and allow one to copy the encrypted data files. The value of DeCSS is not that it is a copy program, but that it is a data conversion program that converts DVD program content from CSS format into MPEG format. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 16:54:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA09111 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:54:21 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA09108 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:54:20 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131bFf-0001oN-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:56:07 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:56:07 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612135607.G722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000612135358.C1735@localhost> <000601bfd4aa$6dbd13e0$f77945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <000601bfd4aa$6dbd13e0$f77945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 03:11:43PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky writes: > Of course, there are those burned-out sectors on the blank DVD. But, that > makes CSS itself very fragile; the only reason it is effective as a > protection (by which I mean, the only way we could contrue it as protecting > a copyright holder's right) is because the fabrication of blank DVDs are > controlled by the same people who control CSS. Funny how that works, isn't it? The entire technology and almost everything around it are very tightly bound up with contracts. Dana could probably tell us about a few of those. There is extensive cross-licensing of patents and trade secrets; many things require an NDA, and some require money. Others (like CSS) require promises about what you're going to do with the technology, and who'll be allowed to use it. I am sure there are power struggles we don't see (and even some you _can_ see, if you go to CPTWG or read Wired News or whatever). But basically the access to the necessary information is limited to an "in crowd"; you can join that crowd with a small company and a bit of cash if you want. > It's an artificial > protection. This seems problematic along the lines of tying, but probably is > decribed in legal parlance slightly differently. > > NOTE, I understand that this scenario does not point out a current danger of > piracy. The point of the argument is to address plaintiff's point that a > decryptor facilitates piracy, when used in conjunction with other tech. In > fact, as tech progresses, the decryptor will become less important, not > more. In *fact*, if there were/are completely blank DVDs available for > purchase, decryptors' importance would drop to zero immediately. Decryption > is not necessary when there is a means to make an encrypted copy and play > that encrypted copy. Huh? Decryption is not necessary for _piracy_ in that case. It's still useful for other purposes, like fair use purposes! How can you convert your DVDs to VCD format without decrypting them for instance? Or VHS (considering Macrovision and the AGC stuff in the latter parts of the DMCA)? How about access to the original bits for commentary and parody? Licensed players might not be ideal for those uses. > Specific question: is it possible to point to the detail of the burned-out > sectors of a blank DVD as immaterial to the question of the importance of a > decryptor for piracy? It's relevant right now, isn't 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 Mon Jun 12 16:55:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA09247 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:55:49 -0400 Received: from dial223.roadrunner.com (dial223.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.223] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA09244 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:55:47 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial223.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02569 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:57:53 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:57:52 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612145752.A2214@localhost> References: <20000612135358.C1735@localhost> <000601bfd4aa$6dbd13e0$f77945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <000601bfd4aa$6dbd13e0$f77945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 03:11:43PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 03:11:43PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > Paul wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:12:07PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > > Can someone tell me again what the non-recordable sectors of a blank DVD > > > actually stop? Is it the region control or the access control? > > > > The pre-burning means that one cannot store the disk key in the place > > the licensed players expect to find it. > > > > This makes it slightly more difficult to access the descrambled work. > > One can of course access the scrambled work, but that is less interesting > > in many cases ;) > > I think accessing the scrambled work is *very* interesting.. I stand corrected. [ ... ] > Of course, there are those burned-out sectors on the blank DVD. But, that > makes CSS itself very fragile; the only reason it is effective as a > protection (by which I mean, the only way we could contrue it as protecting > a copyright holder's right) is because the fabrication of blank DVDs are > controlled by the same people who control CSS. It's an artificial > protection. This seems problematic along the lines of tying, but probably is > decribed in legal parlance slightly differently. > > NOTE, I understand that this scenario does not point out a current danger of > piracy. The point of the argument is to address plaintiff's point that a > decryptor facilitates piracy, when used in conjunction with other tech. In > fact, as tech progresses, the decryptor will become less important, not > more. In *fact*, if there were/are completely blank DVDs available for > purchase, decryptors' importance would drop to zero immediately. Decryption > is not necessary when there is a means to make an encrypted copy and play > that encrypted copy. > > Specific question: is it possible to point to the detail of the burned-out > sectors of a blank DVD as immaterial to the question of the importance of a > decryptor for piracy? What you're saying might be useful, but I feel more comfortable asking a simple question. Is CSS copy protection? Yes or no. If there is a method for making a functioning copy that ignores the existence of CSS, I say there is no sensible way to call CSS copy control. The, "it is copy control in particular circumstances" is a red queen/white queen argument whose objective is to redefine the question. If the MPAA answers, "but the answer to this question isn't yes or no!" I say this is an attempt to divert attention from the fact that the easiest way to deal with CSS when making copies is to ignore CSS. If I lock my back door, and leave my front door wide open, can I claim that "the house is locked"? I say the MPAA are trying to bamboozle people into believing that "I locked a door" == "I locked the house". What follows isn't the answer to your question, but it is relevent. The CSS cipher is sooooooo weak that just a few (five?) bytes of known plain-text are enough to break the cipher. Guess what is at the head of every descrambled VOB file? A standard header. Now I just have to dig through the LiViD archives to figure out how big that headers is. My recollection is that it is big enough to do a straight decryption sans keys. Again my recollection is that this is cumbersome with current CPU speeds, but by no means prohibitive. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:05:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09637 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:05:30 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA09634 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:05:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 7556 invoked by uid 502); 12 Jun 2000 21:14:35 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:14:35 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612171435.S24570@linuxpower.org> References: <20000612205417.1819.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000612205417.1819.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:54:17PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:54:17PM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Chris Moseng wrote: > > I think it would be very enlightening to simply ask what authorizes a > > person to access a DVD. > > > > They must know because they are the ones authorizing. Once we know > > that we will know what we're dealing with. > > The problem is that they'll give an answer with the benefit of > hindsight. They'd say something like "An authorized access occurs when > a purchased DVD is viewed on an authorized player". It would be enlightening to ask the question nonetheless. Of course the plaintiffs would engage in historical revisionism; we'd be disappointed in them if they didn't. But asking the question *would* put them in a position where the claim would have to be backed up with evidence. The question would then be: "As of October 1999, how were these authorization restrictions communicated to the DVD owner?" I suspect they were communicated much the same way as the plans to knock down Arthur Dent's home to build a bypass: in the cellar, in the dark, the stairs gone, "on display" in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Otherwise known as "The Display Department". -- Rob Warren, apologies to Mr. Douglas Adams (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:05:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09645 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:05:48 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA09642 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:05:46 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id RAA30432 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:09:54 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:03:29 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:03:02 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id RAA09643 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I wonder if anyone has compared or has any idea how a the quality of a DVD movie decrypted with DeCSS and compressed with DivX so it could be posted would compare with the quality of the same movie in VCD movie or even VHS movi >>> John Schulien 06/12/00 03:59PM >>> >> She really doesn't know much about the technology huh? Take >> for instance her statement that mpeg can be compressed and then >> transmitted, and DeCSS enables copying. > > What's wrong with that statement? The first part is technically inaccurate, or at the very least misleading. MPEG is already a compressed format. One of the basic "facts of life" about compression is that, with few exceptions, compressed data is itself uncompressable. That's the entire point of compression. You've taken out as much redundancy as you can. What she is implying with this hand-waving exercise, is that using DeCSS is like ripping a CD -- that once you've decoded the 5GB of encrypted DVD data, you have something that can be significantly compressed ,transmitted over the internet, and viewed with little perceived loss in signal quality -- like an MP3. In reality, once you decode a 5GB encrypted MPEG file, you wind up with a 5GB unencrypted MPEG file, that can not be compressed at all without seriously, heavily degrading the quality of the sound and image by use of a program like the divx utility. That's what's misleading about her statement. As for whether DeCSS enables copying, there are other programs that allow access to the UDF filesystem, and allow one to copy the encrypted data files. The value of DeCSS is not that it is a copy program, but that it is a data conversion program that converts DVD program content from CSS format into MPEG format. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:07:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09821 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:07:47 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA09818 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:07:46 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id RAA30447 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:11:58 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:05:33 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:05:00 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id RAA09819 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I wonder if anyone has any idea (or has actually tried this out) how the quatlity of a DeCSS-decrypted DVD that has been compressed with DivX and posted would compare with the quality of a DivX version of the same movie where the source is a VCD or even a VHS cassette? >>> John Schulien 06/12/00 03:59PM >>> >> She really doesn't know much about the technology huh? Take >> for instance her statement that mpeg can be compressed and then >> transmitted, and DeCSS enables copying. > > What's wrong with that statement? The first part is technically inaccurate, or at the very least misleading. MPEG is already a compressed format. One of the basic "facts of life" about compression is that, with few exceptions, compressed data is itself uncompressable. That's the entire point of compression. You've taken out as much redundancy as you can. What she is implying with this hand-waving exercise, is that using DeCSS is like ripping a CD -- that once you've decoded the 5GB of encrypted DVD data, you have something that can be significantly compressed ,transmitted over the internet, and viewed with little perceived loss in signal quality -- like an MP3. In reality, once you decode a 5GB encrypted MPEG file, you wind up with a 5GB unencrypted MPEG file, that can not be compressed at all without seriously, heavily degrading the quality of the sound and image by use of a program like the divx utility. That's what's misleading about her statement. As for whether DeCSS enables copying, there are other programs that allow access to the UDF filesystem, and allow one to copy the encrypted data files. The value of DeCSS is not that it is a copy program, but that it is a data conversion program that converts DVD program content from CSS format into MPEG format. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:09:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09951 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:09:43 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA09948 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:09:42 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:12:01 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C2E@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:12:00 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy A Erwin [mailto:jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu] > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 4:40 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 > > > On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > I want to see those agreements... > > The Ammended and Restated CSS Interim Licence Agreement makes > reference to > > Section 6.2 of the CSS Procedural Specifications. > > "For purposes of this definition, authorized outputs and methods > hereunder are those compliant with requirements contained in > Section 6.2 > of the CSS Procedural Specifications, including any upgrades or > modifications thereto. By way of example and not limitation, > the following > CSS Compliant Products, if so configured, would be considered to be > Protected: > > [lists sabatoged devices] > " > Obviously the CSS Procedural Specifications contains a lot > more than the > CSS algorithms. Unfortunately, the document is shielded as "highly > confidential." > > Jeremy > ... then the restrictions are not in the license agreement, but actually -are- in the CSS specifications?!?!? Wouldn't that mean that Shumann lied ... er, misspoke when he said: 5 A. In my professional opinion, DeCSS is 6 irrelevant to evading the region coding, in your 7 terminology. 8 Q. Why is that? 9 A. Because region coding is not part of 10 the DeCSS specification. So ... is region coding in "The Ammended and Restated CSS Interim Licence Agreement" or is it in "CSS Procedural Specifications" ?? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:10:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA10103 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:10:30 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA10100 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:10:29 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131bVK-0002CS-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:12:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:12:18 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612141218.I722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000612205417.1819.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> <20000612171435.S24570@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000612171435.S24570@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:14:35PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > It would be enlightening to ask the question nonetheless. Of course the > plaintiffs would engage in historical revisionism; we'd be disappointed in > them if they didn't. But asking the question *would* put them in a position > where the claim would have to be backed up with evidence. > > The question would then be: "As of October 1999, how were these authorization > restrictions communicated to the DVD owner?" Has anybody asked the defense lawyers to ask this in depositions? -- 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 Jun 12 17:13:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA10189 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:13:52 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA10184 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:13:51 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:16:09 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C2F@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Filings of June 2 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:16:08 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Leland Ray [mailto:Ray@clearway.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 5:40 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Filings of June 2 > > > > From the preliminary statement in the June 2 filing: > > Defendants ignore that the anti-circumvention laws are > intended to create a > legal barrier to unauthorized access, as a separate and > distinct right from > copyright infringement. Irreparable harm should be presumed > to result from > trafficking in circumvention technology just as it is presumed when a > copyright is infringed. > > Defendants also incorrectly assert that DeCSS does not result in > unauthorized copying. In fact, as defendants admit, DeCSS, by > its design and > function, copies the decrypted DVD movie content onto > computer hard drives, > without the authority of the copyright owner. > > --------------------------------- > > This statement seems incorrect to me in a number of ways: > > 1. "legal barrier as a separate and distinct right from copyright" > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Authority to access is conveyed by purchase of the DVD. If a separate > right was created to control access past first sale, opening the door > to the control of use, then this flies in the face of public policy. > > I think, based on a few statements I have read, that the plaintiffs > will argue the time of access question, and say that the purchase of > a DVD means you can play it only in one of their licensed players. > I hope they do argue that, because then the license -- so far > completely secret -- should be brought out in court. > > > 2. "DeCSS does not result in unauthorized copying" > > I haven't seen that asserted in any of the documents so far. > What I have > seen written is that DeCSS is part of an ongoing effort in the > production of a DVD player that is an independent product with its > own licensing terms. > > Can DeCSS be used to make illegal copies? To me it is like asking > if fertilizer can be used to make bombs, or if gasoline can > be used to kill > people. > > > I think the argument is so simple we need to repeat it over > and over again. > If you buy a DVD, you can play it. You can play it on your > home system, > you can play it at your friend's house. You can play it on > your computer. > > > A better response to point 2 here is the one you used in point 1: Authority to access is conveyed by purchase of the DVD. If this is -not- the case, then they must state where authority to access -is- conveyed. If they claim that it comes w/ the purchase of an authorized player, then we've made our illegal tying case, right? One way or the other, their assertion here that "unauthorized copying" is and must be taking place by the mere use of DeCSS could be a good wedge to force. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:15:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA10240 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:15:24 -0400 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 RAA10237 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:15:19 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-01.suba.com [206.69.121.193]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA07769 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:17:08 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:16:36 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bfd4b3$7df4e860$c17945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <20000612135607.G722@zork.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth wrote: > > sparky writes: > > > It's an artificial > > protection. This seems problematic along the lines of tying, > but probably is > > decribed in legal parlance slightly differently. > > > > NOTE, I understand that this scenario does not point out a > current danger of > > piracy. The point of the argument is to address plaintiff's point that a > > decryptor facilitates piracy, when used in conjunction with > other tech. In > > fact, as tech progresses, the decryptor will become less important, not > > more. In *fact*, if there were/are completely blank DVDs available for > > purchase, decryptors' importance would drop to zero > immediately. Decryption > > is not necessary when there is a means to make an encrypted > copy and play > > that encrypted copy. > > Huh? Decryption is not necessary for _piracy_ in that case. No, this is precisely what I meant: decryption is only of worth to a *pirate* due to purposefully designed media-limitations on blank DVDs. Obviously, any use a decryptor has would then be unassailable, as it would be for something other than piracy. > > It's still useful for other purposes, like fair use purposes! How > can you convert your DVDs to VCD format without decrypting them for > instance? Or VHS (considering Macrovision and the AGC stuff in > the latter parts of the DMCA)? Of course, if you're going to pirate DVDs to other media, decryption is in order. However, cheapest possible avenue for the pirate still appears to be: distribute digital copy of DVD movie, made with licensed player, to owners of DVD-R drives who burn the data onto disk and watch in licensed DVD player (the DVD-R drive). > > How about access to the original bits for commentary and parody? > Licensed players might not be ideal for those uses. > > > Specific question: is it possible to point to the detail of the > burned-out > > sectors of a blank DVD as immaterial to the question of the > importance of a > > decryptor for piracy? > > It's relevant right now, isn't it? What I'm getting at is this: if we say that decryption is not necessary for piracy, counter to the main thrust of Schumann's claim, plaintiffs will come back, "It is necessary, as we've doctored the media." My question is asking if there's a way in legal lingo to turn that statement against them. Is it a permissable statement? Does the fact that a doctored medium, not CSS, ensures the necessity of decryption, mean that CSS is not really a protection covered by 1201? If the fact of the doctored media can be made irrelevant, then decryption clearly is not necessary to pirate and will only become less necessary as tech advances. Meanwhile, other fair uses of decryption are clear, as tech advances (compatibility reasons). sparky > > -- > 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 Jun 12 17:21:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA10355 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:21:51 -0400 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 RAA10352 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:21:50 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-01.suba.com [206.69.121.193]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA08069 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:23:39 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:23:07 -0500 Message-ID: <000501bfd4b4$66f383a0$c17945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <20000612145752.A2214@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 03:11:43PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > > > Paul wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:12:07PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > > > Can someone tell me again what the non-recordable sectors > of a blank DVD > > > > actually stop? Is it the region control or the access control? > > > > > > The pre-burning means that one cannot store the disk key in the place > > > the licensed players expect to find it. > > > > > > This makes it slightly more difficult to access the descrambled work. > > > One can of course access the scrambled work, but that is less > interesting > > > in many cases ;) > > > > I think accessing the scrambled work is *very* interesting.. > > I stand corrected. > > [ ... ] > > Of course, there are those burned-out sectors on the blank DVD. > But, that > > makes CSS itself very fragile; the only reason it is effective as a > > protection (by which I mean, the only way we could contrue it > as protecting > > a copyright holder's right) is because the fabrication of blank DVDs are > > controlled by the same people who control CSS. It's an artificial > > protection. This seems problematic along the lines of tying, > but probably is > > decribed in legal parlance slightly differently. > > > > NOTE, I understand that this scenario does not point out a > current danger of > > piracy. The point of the argument is to address plaintiff's point that a > > decryptor facilitates piracy, when used in conjunction with > other tech. In > > fact, as tech progresses, the decryptor will become less important, not > > more. In *fact*, if there were/are completely blank DVDs available for > > purchase, decryptors' importance would drop to zero > immediately. Decryption > > is not necessary when there is a means to make an encrypted > copy and play > > that encrypted copy. > > > > Specific question: is it possible to point to the detail of the > burned-out > > sectors of a blank DVD as immaterial to the question of the > importance of a > > decryptor for piracy? > > What you're saying might be useful, but I feel more comfortable asking > a simple question. Is CSS copy protection? Yes or no. If there is > a method > for making a functioning copy that ignores the existence of CSS, I say > there is no sensible way to call CSS copy control. The, "it is copy > control in particular circumstances" is a red queen/white queen argument > whose objective is to redefine the question. If the MPAA answers, > "but the answer to this question isn't yes or no!" I say this is an > attempt to divert attention from the fact that the easiest way to > deal with > CSS when making copies is to ignore CSS. I think we're talking about the same thing here, and I think the doctored blank DVD media are the way to drive the point home. IF NOT "doctored media", THEN NOT "css = access control". What I am interested in is finding a way of eliminating "doctored media", on an argumentative level. Obviously they exist. Is there a way to make the fact of their existence immaterial? Is it tying? Is the mere fact that they exist mean that the necessity of decryption for piracy has nothing to do with CSS, but with artificial limitations on DVD tech market? (Was that there perhaps the right way to say it?) That would be the better approach, to make the fact work for us. Is there a way to make this fact work for us? sparky > > If I lock my back door, and leave my front door wide open, can I claim > that "the house is locked"? I say the MPAA are trying to bamboozle people > into believing that "I locked a door" == "I locked the house". > > What follows isn't the answer to your question, but it is > relevent. The CSS > cipher is sooooooo weak that just a few (five?) bytes of known plain-text > are enough to break the cipher. Guess what is at the head of > every descrambled > VOB file? A standard header. Now I just have to dig through the > LiViD archives > to figure out how big that headers is. My recollection is that it is > big enough to do a straight decryption sans keys. Again my recollection > is that this is cumbersome with current CPU speeds, but by no means > prohibitive. > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:24:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA10568 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:24:54 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA10565 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:24:53 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131bjH-0002Lq-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:26:43 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:26:43 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612142643.K722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000612135607.G722@zork.net> <000401bfd4b3$7df4e860$c17945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <000401bfd4b3$7df4e860$c17945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:16:36PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky writes: > > . Decryption > > > is not necessary when there is a means to make an encrypted > > copy and play > > > that encrypted copy. > > > > Huh? Decryption is not necessary for _piracy_ in that case. > > No, this is precisely what I meant: decryption is only of worth to a > *pirate* due to purposefully designed media-limitations on blank DVDs. > Obviously, any use a decryptor has would then be unassailable, as it would > be for something other than piracy. Oh, I misunderstood you. I think we agree. > > It's still useful for other purposes, like fair use purposes! How > > can you convert your DVDs to VCD format without decrypting them for > > instance? Or VHS (considering Macrovision and the AGC stuff in > > the latter parts of the DMCA)? > > > > How about access to the original bits for commentary and parody? > > Licensed players might not be ideal for those uses. This is the case now, though -- the authorized players are presumably not what video experts would most like to work with, in teaching, etc. > Of course, if you're going to pirate DVDs to other media, decryption is in > order. However, cheapest possible avenue for the pirate still appears to be: > distribute digital copy of DVD movie, made with licensed player, to owners > of DVD-R drives who burn the data onto disk and watch in licensed DVD player > (the DVD-R drive). Licensed players might start adding more countermeasures against this. Eventually, on a single-user OS, it might start to look like Core Wars. Remember that format-shifting is _legal_ for personal use, pre-DMCA. > > It's relevant right now, isn't it? > > What I'm getting at is this: if we say that decryption is not necessary for > piracy, counter to the main thrust of Schumann's claim, plaintiffs will come > back, "It is necessary, as we've doctored the media." My question is asking > if there's a way in legal lingo to turn that statement against them. Is it a > permissable statement? Does the fact that a doctored medium, not CSS, > ensures the necessity of decryption, mean that CSS is not really a > protection covered by 1201? If the fact of the doctored media can be made > irrelevant, then decryption clearly is not necessary to pirate and will only > become less necessary as tech advances. Meanwhile, other fair uses of > decryption are clear, as tech advances (compatibility reasons). Oh, I see, I think. This is an interesting line of argument. There might be some nice legal analogies from other situations, but I can't think of any hypotheticals to throw at lawyers right now. I guess what you're saying is that the plaintiffs have only themselves to blame for the state of affairs in which decryption is (for the moment) uniquely threatening to them; that situation is artificial and temporary. -- 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 Jun 12 17:26:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA10655 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:26:43 -0400 Received: from dial120.roadrunner.com (sf-du120.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.120]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA10652 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:26:40 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial120.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02960 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:28:50 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:28:49 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:51:54PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:51:54PM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: [ ... ] > There is an interesting point here regarding key revocation. Since apparently > key revocation would be done by the DVDCCA, revoking a player key would not > constitute "unauthorizing" access since they aren't the copyright holder. > > I've got to think on this one some more. There's a fault line here, and I > have a feeling it runs rather deep. Paul, any thoughts? [ ... ] Ohh. This very nice. Perhaps this is an argument that CSS simply isn't a 1201(a) access control. If someone other than the copyright holder can impair the access mechanism, it might follow that the mechanism can't be fit into 1201(a)(3). Is this a _counter example_ to "with authority of the copyright owner"? The answer to that point will depend in part on what the studio/DVD-CCA licenses say. I don't think we have access to those licenses yet. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:37:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA10795 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:37:19 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA10792 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:37:18 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131bvI-0002P6-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:39:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:39:08 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612143908.L722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000612152849.B2214@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 03:28:49PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:51:54PM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > [ ... ] > > There is an interesting point here regarding key revocation. Since apparently > > key revocation would be done by the DVDCCA, revoking a player key would not > > constitute "unauthorizing" access since they aren't the copyright holder. > > > > I've got to think on this one some more. There's a fault line here, and I > > have a feeling it runs rather deep. Paul, any thoughts? > [ ... ] > > Ohh. This very nice. Perhaps this is an argument that CSS simply > isn't a 1201(a) access control. If someone other than the copyright > holder can impair the access mechanism, it might follow that the > mechanism can't be fit into 1201(a)(3). Is this a _counter example_ > to "with authority of the copyright owner"? The answer to that point > will depend in part on what the studio/DVD-CCA licenses say. I > don't think we have access to those licenses yet. I'm afraid there is a secret contract somewhere which says that the studios are permanently delegating to the DVD CCA a non-exclusive right to grant/administer/revoke authority to decrypt the studios' content, together with the granting, administration, and revocation of CSS licenses. Yeah, consumers wouldn't know anything about this, but the studios might say that there is no reason they should. How would you answer that? -- 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 Jun 12 17:39:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA10946 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:39:26 -0400 Received: from shaft.bitmine.net (root@shaft.bitmine.net [216.231.58.163]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA10943 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:39:25 -0400 Received: from localhost (jbrelin@localhost) by shaft.bitmine.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) with ESMTP id OAA08399 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:41:10 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:41:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeme A Brelin X-Sender: jbrelin@shaft.bitmine.net To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. 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 is a bit esoteric and possibly out of line for a first-time post, but I've had a burning question for the last few months. In searching for the roots of all of these current problems facing users of data communications and related technology, I thought it might be interesting to find out how copyright got its start in the U.S. and by what legal means (and for what purpose) copyright exists as U.S. law. So here's my thought: The Constitution, in enumerating the powers of Congress in Article I Section 8, grants Congress the ability to enact copyright as follows: 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; This is cited commonly because it is a rare case in constitutional law: The purpose of the provision is given right alongside its description. I've heard this used (specifically in the Eldred v. Reno case) as an argument that copyright must serve the public good. But I think it's more than that. Can we not contest the DMCA in the Supreme Court with the argument that it does NOT "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? Indeed, can't we argue that "science and the useful arts" specifically limits copyright to those fields of endeavor and therefore the fine arts have no justifiable copyright claims? It is the nature of fine art to feed upon itself, reflect both itself and culture in general, and comment on the human condition. Copyright on fine arts is contrary to this notion and is not provided for under the Constitution. I have much more to say on this topic and have an eighty percent written article that I'm considering submitting to some online news outlets. Does this interest anyone? Has it been covered and dismissed? Also, I'm quite curious why portions of the DMCA (as well as the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992) have not been challenged citing the Betamax decision (Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios et al.). Just my few bits. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:41:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11017 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:41:25 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11014 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:41:24 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04479 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:43:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39454C67.A397799E@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:47:35 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann 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 So my quick summary of this would be: o It may be possible, in theory, using two extremely fast computers and a dedicated 100Mb ethernet connection, to create a hardware configuration that would allow the "seven minute miracle" to take place. o This would be on a local LAN though, not over the internet. Over the internet, the time would jump to many, many hours. o So the only people who could carry out the "seven minute miracle" would be people on the same high speed LAN. In the same office, for instance, or students living on the same dorm floor. o In other words, we are talking about small groups of people who are already in close physical proximity to each other. In fact, the networking hardware required for the "seven minute miracle" has cable length restrictions on the order of hundreds of feet at the most. o Even then, many universities throttle student internet access speed on local networks to prevent one user from overwhelming the local network. o An even faster way for these specific catagories of people the MPAA is so worried about to share the contents of a DVD would be for one to carry the disc over to the other and hand it to them. o This might explain the lack of any evidence of this sort of activity actually happening. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:43:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11081 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:43:47 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11078 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:43:46 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131c1Y-0002Q3-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:45:36 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:45:36 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Message-ID: <20000612144536.M722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C2E@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C2E@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:12:00PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman writes: > ... then the restrictions are not in the license agreement, > but actually -are- in the CSS specifications?!?!? I believe that the procedural and technical specifications are separate. Technical specs would be "how to implement CSS". Procedural specs would be "what else to do when you implement CSS". > Wouldn't > that mean that Shumann lied ... er, misspoke when he said: > > 5 A. In my professional opinion, DeCSS is > > 6 irrelevant to evading the region coding, in your > > 7 terminology. > > 8 Q. Why is that? > > 9 A. Because region coding is not part of > > 10 the DeCSS specification. True, I think -- the CSS _technical_ specification. > So ... is region coding in "The Ammended and Restated CSS Interim > Licence Agreement" or is it in "CSS Procedural Specifications" ?? Probably the latter, while CSS itself would be defined in a third document. I guess. My summary: the license says that you get the technical specification and keys, and you may use them, if you also follow the procedural specifications and keep them all confidential. This is just guessing. -- 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 Jun 12 17:44:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11134 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:44:36 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11131 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:44:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 7813 invoked by uid 502); 12 Jun 2000 21:53:42 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:53:42 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612175342.W24570@linuxpower.org> References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000612152849.B2214@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 03:28:49PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 03:28:49PM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:51:54PM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > [ ... ] > > There is an interesting point here regarding key revocation. Since apparently > > key revocation would be done by the DVDCCA, revoking a player key would not > > constitute "unauthorizing" access since they aren't the copyright holder. > > > > I've got to think on this one some more. There's a fault line here, and I > > have a feeling it runs rather deep. Paul, any thoughts? > [ ... ] > > Ohh. This very nice. Perhaps this is an argument that CSS simply > isn't a 1201(a) access control. If someone other than the copyright > holder can impair the access mechanism, it might follow that the > mechanism can't be fit into 1201(a)(3). Is this a _counter example_ > to "with authority of the copyright owner"? The answer to that point > will depend in part on what the studio/DVD-CCA licenses say. I > don't think we have access to those licenses yet. I agree that it depends on the licenses. But at the same time.. let's say that the licenses flatly say "authorization is granted only on 'special' DVD players (i.e. CSS licensed)", and the "where exactly do you say *that*??" argument doesn't hold. Doesn't this almost get into the territory of racketeering? We'd be talking about access providers and content producers creating a special little space between them and building a big wall around it ("litigators rather than alligators"). The first consequence of this situation would be "outside players" having to conform to the dictates of these powers in order to play on the same field. The ultimate effect wouldn't be an assault on piracy so much as it would be an assault on competitive, independent producers. I was just looking through the FAQ for this because honestly I don't remember, but did we decide that there were some DVDs out there that weren't CSSed? If so, that sort of blows a hole in this line of reasoning. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:49:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11217 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:49:52 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11214 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:49:51 -0400 Message-ID: <20000612215112.29304.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:51:12 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:51:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time 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: > Is there a least restrictive means test in copyright law? Yes, several in fact: "fair use", the non-copyrightability of ideas and facts, and the merger principle. > How about in other (non-speech-impacting) commerce regulations? >From _holding_ (b) of Jones v US No. 99-5739 (US Supreme Court May 22, 2000) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-5739 "The foregoing reading is in harmony with the guiding principle that where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, the Court's duty is to adopt the latter. See, e.g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575. " The court considered and *unamimously* rejected a Federal statue's application of arson laws to a private residential home, because a home is not "used in" interstate commerce, despite out of state mortgage, insurance, and natural gas providers. The times they are a changin'. > It would be neat to see all of CFR challenged as not being the least > restrictive means of accomplishing various objectives, but I don't > think that would work. This is essentially what Thomas's concurring opinion says in US v Morrison (99-5) (US Supreme Court May 15, 2000). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-5#section4 In this case, a 5-4 one, the Court upheld both lower courts and a facial challenge to a violence against women law, based on the commerce power limits. > The plaintiffs are very big on deference to Congress. It would be > interesting to see how they would react if Congress passed a law > regulating violent movies. The odd thing is that our First amendment defense is statutory as well as Constitutional, being based on 1201(c)(4) and 1203(b)(1). > I'm pretty sure that, in the present case, they would say (and > probably _have_ said) that fair use exists only because of 107, which > has no bearing on circumvention at all. They have said as much, repeatedly. It is decisively false. In Cambell v Acuff-Rose, there are cites to English commonlaw upholding "fair abridgments" as early as 1710, and to Justice Story whose "judge-made" criteria from 1841 wound up in the Copyright Act only after 135 years. This is how the US Supreme Court views it in the 2 Live Crew case: Cambell v. Acuff-Rose, No. 92-1292 (US Supreme Court March 7, 1994) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=<%LINKURL%>&graphurl=<%GRAPHURL%>&court=US&case=/us/000/u10426.html#5 "[A]lthough the First Congress enacted our initial copyright statute, Act of May 31, 1790, 1 Stat. 124, without any explicit reference to 'fair use,' as it later came to be known, the doctrine was recognized by the American courts nonetheless. " "Congress meant 107 'to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way' and intended that courts continue the common law tradition of fair use adjudication. H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 66 (1976) (hereinafter House Report); S.Rep. No. 94-473, p. 62 (1975) (hereinafter Senate Report). The fair use doctrine thus 'permits [and requires] courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster.' Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 236 (1990) " __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:50:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11299 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:50:28 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11289 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:50:27 -0400 Received: (qmail 7843 invoked by uid 502); 12 Jun 2000 21:59:35 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:59:35 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Message-ID: <20000612175935.X24570@linuxpower.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Jeme A Brelin on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:41:10PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:41:10PM -0700, Jeme A Brelin wrote: > > Can we not contest the DMCA in the Supreme Court with the argument that it > does NOT "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? Our good friends in Washington did a sort of ball-and-cup game when they passed the DMCA. They didn't claim it to be purely part of the copyright clause; it was claimed to be done under the authority of the commerce clause as well. FAQ 2.3.2: http://www.cssfaq.org/dvd-discuss-faq.html#ss2.3.2 Of course, whether this was actually a legal move is another question entirely. More than a few people have suggested that Congress overreached their authority by straddling the fence between copyright and commerce clauses. > Also, I'm quite curious why portions of the DMCA (as well as the Audio > Home Recording Act of 1992) have not been challenged citing the Betamax > decision (Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios et al.). The DMCA is still young; not a whole lot of cases have been tried against it yet. That's one reason why this case is so important.. it will be one of the early precedents. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 17:51:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11434 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:51:39 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11431 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:51:37 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131c99-0002RR-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:53:27 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:53:27 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612145327.N722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> <20000612175342.W24570@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000612175342.W24570@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:53:42PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > Doesn't this almost get into the territory of racketeering? If so, a lot of the technology industry's usual business practices would also be racketeering. (I'm not saying that's not the case.) > I was just looking through the FAQ for this because honestly I don't remember, > but did we decide that there were some DVDs out there that weren't CSSed? If > so, that sort of blows a hole in this line of reasoning. Yes, there are, but they were still most likely produced by someone who was subject to many legal agreements with other industry players. -- 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 Jun 12 17:58:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11538 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:58:28 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11535 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:58:27 -0400 Received: (qmail 7924 invoked by uid 502); 12 Jun 2000 22:07:35 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:07:35 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612180735.Y24570@linuxpower.org> References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> <20000612143908.L722@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000612143908.L722@zork.net>; from Seth David Schoen on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:39:08PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:39:08PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:51:54PM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > [ ... ] > > > There is an interesting point here regarding key revocation. Since apparently > > > key revocation would be done by the DVDCCA, revoking a player key would not > > > constitute "unauthorizing" access since they aren't the copyright holder. > > > > > > I've got to think on this one some more. There's a fault line here, and I > > > have a feeling it runs rather deep. Paul, any thoughts? > > [ ... ] > > > > Ohh. This very nice. Perhaps this is an argument that CSS simply > > isn't a 1201(a) access control. If someone other than the copyright > > holder can impair the access mechanism, it might follow that the > > mechanism can't be fit into 1201(a)(3). Is this a _counter example_ > > to "with authority of the copyright owner"? The answer to that point > > will depend in part on what the studio/DVD-CCA licenses say. I > > don't think we have access to those licenses yet. > > I'm afraid there is a secret contract somewhere which says that the > studios are permanently delegating to the DVD CCA a non-exclusive > right to grant/administer/revoke authority to decrypt the studios' > content, together with the granting, administration, and revocation of > CSS licenses. > > Yeah, consumers wouldn't know anything about this, but the studios > might say that there is no reason they should. How would you answer > that? I'd answer it by pointing out that if such authorizing agreements are kept secret, then the consumer has no way at all of knowing whether or not they are authorized to use the material. Without any sort of criteria by which to judge, any claim to "illicit unauthorized use" can be replied to with "No one ever told me." I'd like to think that a wise judge would handle this issue by deciding that in the absence of a spelled-out license, that the license between copyright user and owner is implied and limited to what the user should reasonably assume. Otherwise you're dealing with a scenario similar to breaking the law in a totalitarian society: "You're arrested." "For what?" "None of your business. You broke the law." "Which law?" "That's state business. Come along." "But I'm innocent!" "If you were innocent, you wouldn't be getting arrested." -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 18:02:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA11666 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:02:23 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA11663 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:02:10 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131cIr-0002Rw-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:03:29 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:03:29 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612150329.O722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000612215112.29304.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000612215112.29304.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:51:12PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor writes: > --- Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > Is there a least restrictive means test in copyright law? > Yes, several in fact: "fair use", the non-copyrightability of ideas and > facts, and the merger principle. Hmmm, that's not quite the same as "least restrictive means", though. > The court considered and *unamimously* rejected a Federal statue's > application of arson laws to a private residential home, because a home > is not "used in" interstate commerce, despite out of state mortgage, > insurance, and natural gas providers. The times they are a changin'. > > > It would be neat to see all of CFR challenged as not being the least > > restrictive means of accomplishing various objectives, but I don't > > think that would work. > > This is essentially what Thomas's concurring opinion says in US v > Morrison (99-5) (US Supreme Court May 15, 2000). > http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-5#section4 > In this case, a 5-4 one, the Court upheld both lower courts and a > facial challenge to a violence against women law, based on the commerce > power limits. The commerce power limits are not the same as "least restrictive means". You found two recent cases showing a trend toward requiring actual proof of interstate or foreign commerce before something can be regulated. But those precedents don't have any consequences for limiting the _scope and content_ of the regulations, once genuine interstate commerce is found. DeCSS does have commercially significant uses, and it's distributed on the Internet (i.e. interstate and foreign distribution). I submit that these precedents would not prevent it from being regulated, nor would they say anything about the scope of the regulations. Or do you think that "commercially significant use" will no longer be enough, because the distribution of something for free is still not in itself "commerce", and the new precedents will lead to a lack of Federal regulations (under the Commerce Clause) on anything that's given away for free? > > The plaintiffs are very big on deference to Congress. It would be > > interesting to see how they would react if Congress passed a law > > regulating violent movies. > > The odd thing is that our First amendment defense is statutory as well > as Constitutional, being based on 1201(c)(4) and 1203(b)(1). Did Judge Kaplan just ignore that outright, because he wasn't convinced that computer software is a form of speech? > > I'm pretty sure that, in the present case, they would say (and > > probably _have_ said) that fair use exists only because of 107, which > > has no bearing on circumvention at all. > > They have said as much, repeatedly. It is decisively false. In Cambell > v Acuff-Rose, there are cites to English commonlaw upholding "fair > abridgments" as early as 1710, and to Justice Story whose "judge-made" > criteria from 1841 wound up in the Copyright Act only after 135 years. > > This is how the US Supreme Court views it in the 2 Live Crew case: > > Cambell v. Acuff-Rose, No. 92-1292 (US Supreme Court March 7, 1994) > http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=<%LINKURL%>&graphurl=<%GRAPHURL%>&court=US&case=/us/000/u10426.html#5 > > "[A]lthough the First Congress enacted our initial copyright statute, > Act of May 31, 1790, 1 Stat. 124, without any explicit reference to > 'fair use,' as it later came to be known, the doctrine was recognized > by the American courts nonetheless. " > > "Congress meant 107 'to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair > use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way' and intended that > courts continue the common law tradition of fair use adjudication. > H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 66 (1976) (hereinafter House Report); S.Rep. > No. 94-473, p. 62 (1975) (hereinafter Senate Report). The fair use > doctrine thus 'permits [and requires] courts to avoid rigid application > of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very > creativity which that law is designed to foster.' Stewart v. Abend, 495 > U.S. 207, 236 (1990) " Now _that_'s what I like to hear. -- 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 Jun 12 18:06:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA11813 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:06:58 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA11810 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:06:57 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131cLm-0002SR-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:06:30 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:06:30 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612150630.P722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> <20000612143908.L722@zork.net> <20000612180735.Y24570@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000612180735.Y24570@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 06:07:35PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > I'd answer it by pointing out that if such authorizing agreements are > kept secret, then the consumer has no way at all of knowing whether or > not they are authorized to use the material. Without any sort of > criteria by which to judge, any claim to "illicit unauthorized use" > can be replied to with "No one ever told me." > > I'd like to think that a wise judge would handle this issue by deciding > that in the absence of a spelled-out license, that the license between > copyright user and owner is implied and limited to what the user should > reasonably assume. Very nice. So, now the MPAA can suggest that a shrink-wrapped package at Fry's or Circuit City looks like the product of a Responsible Firm, where DeCSS, downloaded from a pseudonymous user in Germany or the Czech Republic, looks like a warez kiddies' tool. So a reasonable consumer only assumes that things that _look_ "legit" are legit, right? -- 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 Jun 12 18:10:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA11946 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:10:13 -0400 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 SAA11943 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:10:11 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-48.suba.com [206.69.121.240]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA10624 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:11:47 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:11:15 -0500 Message-ID: <001001bfd4bb$206499e0$c17945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <20000612175935.X24570@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rob wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:41:10PM -0700, Jeme A Brelin wrote: > > > > Can we not contest the DMCA in the Supreme Court with the > argument that it > > does NOT "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? > > Our good friends in Washington did a sort of ball-and-cup game when they > passed the DMCA. They didn't claim it to be purely part of the copyright > clause; it was claimed to be done under the authority of the commerce > clause as well. Although according to Bliley its true basis is *only* the commerce clause: Both the conduct and device provisions of section 1201 create new rights in addition to those which Congress is authorized to recognize under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. As pointed out by the distinguished law professors quoted above, this legislation is really a `paracopyright' measure. In this respect, then, the constitutional basis for legislating is the commerce clause, not the `copyright' clause. > > FAQ 2.3.2: > > http://www.cssfaq.org/dvd-discuss-faq.html#ss2.3.2 > > Of course, whether this was actually a legal move is another question > entirely. More than a few people have suggested that Congress overreached > their authority by straddling the fence between copyright and commerce > clauses. It appears to me that recognition of this may be in Bliley's language above ("new rights in addition to those which Congress is authorized to recognize under [copyright clause]"), but it's unclear to me. If this recognition exists, it would indicate even more strongly that the real basis of 1201 is the commerce clause. What it's doing in chapter 17, I have *no* idea. sparky > > > > Also, I'm quite curious why portions of the DMCA (as well as the Audio > > Home Recording Act of 1992) have not been challenged citing the Betamax > > decision (Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios et al.). > > The DMCA is still young; not a whole lot of cases have been tried > against it > yet. That's one reason why this case is so important.. it will > be one of the > early precedents. > > > -- > Rob Warren > > (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 18:21:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA12068 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:21:58 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA12064 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:21:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 8119 invoked by uid 502); 12 Jun 2000 22:31:06 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:31:06 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Message-ID: <20000612183106.Z24570@linuxpower.org> References: <20000612175935.X24570@linuxpower.org> <001001bfd4bb$206499e0$c17945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <001001bfd4bb$206499e0$c17945ce@bugbug>; from sparky on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:11:15PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:11:15PM -0500, sparky wrote: > Rob wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:41:10PM -0700, Jeme A Brelin wrote: > > > > > > Can we not contest the DMCA in the Supreme Court with the > > argument that it > > > does NOT "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? > > > > Our good friends in Washington did a sort of ball-and-cup game when they > > passed the DMCA. They didn't claim it to be purely part of the copyright > > clause; it was claimed to be done under the authority of the commerce > > clause as well. > > Although according to Bliley its true basis is *only* the commerce clause: > > > Both the conduct and device provisions of section 1201 create new rights in > addition to those which Congress is authorized to recognize under Article I, > Section 8, Clause 8. As pointed out by the distinguished law professors > quoted above, this legislation is really a `paracopyright' measure. In this > respect, then, the constitutional basis for legislating is the commerce > clause, not the `copyright' clause. > You chopped out the sentence immediately preceding the above passage: "In making our proposed recommendations, the Committee on Commerce acted under both the `copyright' clause and the commerce clause." It should be mentioned here that Bliley was the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 18:34:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA12240 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:34:40 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12237 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:34:39 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:36:58 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C30@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] "DeCSS" vs. "CSS" in the Shumann Deposition (was: RE: [dvd-discus s] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:36:57 -0700 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 Actually, the terms "DeCSS" and "CSS" are VERY important in these questions, and I think Shumann is deliberately conflating them. Region coding may not be part of the -CSS- technical specification, but that was not the question asked. -DeCSS- certainly does enable someone to get around the region coding restrictions, the issue of whether those restrictions are technical or contractual is immaterial at this point. Because the creators of DeCSS did not license CSS, they were not bound by the requirement to enforce region encoding and thus DeCSS -does- enable you to get around the region encoding restriction. (the question actually asked, but not answered) By apparently interpreting the question as stated (referencing DeCSS) to be instead asking indirectly about CSS, he could give the answer he gave ... but strictly speaking: yes, DeCSS does enable people to get around the region encoding restrictions because it is not bound by the CSS licensing requirements. Note also the evasion on the fast-forward issue. No, DeCSS >per se< (note the clarification "DeCSS itself?") does not let you fast-forward, because DeCSS >is not a player<. It -does-, though, let you create unencrypted files that you can view at any speed your player will support. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Hernstadt [mailto:ehernstadt@FGKS.COM] > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 10:41 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 > > > Here's another point, and the point of the questioning that > Schumann wriggled out of answering: does DeCSS permit the > evasion of the region coding. If it does, through function > unrelated to decryption, then it is a utility with at least > one property/function that does not implicate the > anti-cirvumvention provisions of the DMCA, as interpreted by > the plaintiffs, and is therefore permissible. > > My understanding is that in most, but not all cases, DeCSS > does enable the user to evade region coding limititations. > Is this true? > > >>> root 06/10/00 05:13AM >>> > 83 > > 1 Schumann > > 2 Q. Does DeCSS permit a consumer who has > > 3 purchased a DVD to fast-forward through sections of > > 4 a DVD that the manufacturer has prevented from > > 5 being fast-forwarded? > > The fast-forward prohibition is achieved throught the > licensing of CSS, > it is not a technical feature of CSS per se. This distinction between > the technical feature of CSS proper and the technical > features which are > imposed by virtue of the licensing arrangements in clouded in this > discussion. > > 6 A. DeCSS itself? > > 7 Q. That's my question. > > 8 A. No. > > 9 Q. Does DeCSS enable someone to use > > 10 with some other program, like a DVD player, to skip > > 11 the region code? > > 12 A. I think it is irrelevant to that > > 13 problem. > > Bzzzt. It is technically irrelevant, but it sure is legally relevant. > > 14 Q. You think DeCSS is irrelevant to > > 15 that problem? > > 16 A. To the problem of evading region > > 17 code? > > 18 Q. Yes. > > 19 A. Yes. > > Again, only in a technical sense. Region coding does not require the > application of a process or information [ §1201(a)(3) ], it requires > the _testing_ of eight bits on the disk. Performance of that test > is enforced by contractual obligation, not technical design. > > The design of CSS could have been such that each region would > have its > own set of player keys. Such an arrangement would have been a > technological *enforcement* of region coding, probably > pursuant to (a)(3) -- > > however I suspect that CSS and region coding were separated > because of > the possibility that region codes would be found an illegal restraint > of trade (New Zealand?) meant that the technological measures needed > to be kept separated. Once the measures are separated, the > DVD-CCA/studios > can shed region codes where they are illegal without > affecting one their > over-all goal of access control after first sale. > > > 22 A. Yes, I have. > > 23 Q. In a Declaration if there is a > > 24 statement that says that DeCSS permits you to evade > > 25 region coding, a region coding limitation, then > > > INTERIM COURT REPORTING > > > 84 > > 1 Schumann > > 2 that statement is incorrect? > > 3 MR. GOLD: I object to the form. > > 4 Q. You can answer the question. > > 5 A. In my professional opinion, DeCSS is > > 6 irrelevant to evading the region coding, in your > > 7 terminology. > > 8 Q. Why is that? > > 9 A. Because region coding is not part of > > 10 the DeCSS specification. > > This entirely misses the point. It is not whether region > coding is part > of the CSS spec, rather region coding is part of the CSS > license [ caveat: > these license are, so far as I know from examining the > DVD-CCA web-site > etc., non-public. Getting a look at these licenses might be very > interesting. ] > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 18:39:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA12354 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:39:25 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12351 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:39:24 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:41:43 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C31@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:41:42 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu [mailto:daw@cs.berkeley.edu] > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 2:08 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] p.83, Schumann Deposition, May 15, 2000 > > > In article , > Edward Hernstadt wrote: > > Here's another point, and the point of the questioning that > > Schumann wriggled out of answering: does DeCSS permit the > > evasion of the region coding. > > Technically, the CSS encryption does not itself enforce the > region coding > restriction (at least, not directly), so one could with a > straight face > try to pretend that the answer is a simple no. And one might even get > away with such a bluff, if the listener isn't too well-informed on DVD > security systems... Actually, the only way he could pretend the answer is a simple no is by (deliberately) misinterpreting the question. The question was not asking about CSS re. region coding, but it was asking about DeCSS. If discussing CSS, you can say that region coding is not part of the technical spec, so CSS has nothing to do with it if you can restrict your answer to the technical aspects of CSS. But when discussing -DeCSS- you must acknowledge that it gets around -two- separate things: the technical CSS -and- the CSS license. There is no separating these things w/ DeCSS because it is a matter of what DeCSS -excludes- which can not be limited to the technical, whereas with CSS it is a matter of what is -included- in the question. (I hope I'm making sense here) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 18:45:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA12490 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:45:19 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA12487 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:45:17 -0400 Received: (qmail 8222 invoked by uid 502); 12 Jun 2000 22:54:23 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:54:23 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612185423.A24570@linuxpower.org> References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> <20000612143908.L722@zork.net> <20000612180735.Y24570@linuxpower.org> <20000612150630.P722@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000612150630.P722@zork.net>; from Seth David Schoen on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 03:06:30PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 03:06:30PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > > > I'd answer it by pointing out that if such authorizing agreements are > > kept secret, then the consumer has no way at all of knowing whether or > > not they are authorized to use the material. Without any sort of > > criteria by which to judge, any claim to "illicit unauthorized use" > > can be replied to with "No one ever told me." > > > > I'd like to think that a wise judge would handle this issue by deciding > > that in the absence of a spelled-out license, that the license between > > copyright user and owner is implied and limited to what the user should > > reasonably assume. > > Very nice. So, now the MPAA can suggest that a shrink-wrapped package > at Fry's or Circuit City looks like the product of a Responsible Firm, > where DeCSS, downloaded from a pseudonymous user in Germany or the > Czech Republic, looks like a warez kiddies' tool. > > So a reasonable consumer only assumes that things that _look_ "legit" > are legit, right? I'd say it depends on how you define "reasonable" from a legal standpoint. Perception - which is what you're describing - ain't necessarily reason. It doesn't matter how the "average person" perceives the situation; what matters is what information was available to that person and whether or not that individual *should* or *could* have known they were breaking the law. Imagine you get pulled over for speeding. The cop pulls you over and tells you, "You were going 45 in a 30 MPH zone." If you then tell the cop that you didn't see the speed limit sign, then sure, there's a slight chance the cop will feel sorry for you and let you go. But most likely you'll get the ticket. If you fight it in court and say "I didn't see the sign!" you'll get laughed out of the courtroom. Your lack of an attention span ain't the state's problem. But if there *were* no speed limit signs - no possible way whatsoever for you to know you were breaking the law - then you're still getting the ticket but you'll most likely beat it in court, because it's unreasonable to demand that someone meet requirements that aren't available to them. To say that DVD playback is only "authorized" according to secret criteria on a secret contract that is never divulged to the end user, is unreasonable because the end user has no way to know whether or not they are authorized to use the DVD. If push comes to shove there, then you look at what information was available to the end user, starting with "Authorized for Private Home Use Only" printed on the DVD snapcase. Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 18:57:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA12625 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:57:44 -0400 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 SAA12622 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:57:43 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-19.suba.com [206.69.121.211]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA12543 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:59:33 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:59:02 -0500 Message-ID: <001101bfd4c1$ccf5ca20$c17945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <39454C67.A397799E@uic.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John wrote: > [cool-ass summary on the plausibility of the 7 minute miracle] We/ve got a response to that one then. The next experiments someone should try - I personally have no DVD player/DVDs - would be against Schumann's playing of the decrypted movies with: PowerDVD, XingDVD, Windows MediaPlayer, and WinDVD. What are the technical problems with playing movies directly from hard disk? Aren't there significant processing overhead issues (the reason DVD players are little computers)? Is playback flawless? What sort of computer configuration must one have for playback to be flawless for all four of these players? Cost of such a setup? sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 19:02:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA12773 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:02:52 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA12770 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:02:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 8428 invoked by uid 502); 12 Jun 2000 23:12:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:12:01 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000612191201.B24570@linuxpower.org> References: <39454C67.A397799E@uic.edu> <001101bfd4c1$ccf5ca20$c17945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <001101bfd4c1$ccf5ca20$c17945ce@bugbug>; from sparky on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:59:02PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:59:02PM -0500, sparky wrote: > John wrote: > > > [cool-ass summary on the plausibility of the 7 minute miracle] > > We/ve got a response to that one then. The next experiments someone should > try - I personally have no DVD player/DVDs - would be against Schumann's > playing of the decrypted movies with: PowerDVD, XingDVD, Windows > MediaPlayer, and WinDVD. > > What are the technical problems with playing movies directly from hard disk? > Aren't there significant processing overhead issues (the reason DVD players > are little computers)? AFAIK, the reason software-based DVD players are so overhead-intensive is because they're being decrypted in real-time. Beyond that, it's an MPEG2 file. I don't think you'd have the same CPU burden playing the output of DeCSS that you would playing a normal DVD. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 19:03:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA12783 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:03:04 -0400 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 TAA12780 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:03:02 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-19.suba.com [206.69.121.211]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA12734 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:04:50 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:04:21 -0500 Message-ID: <001201bfd4c2$8b54d600$c17945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <20000612183106.Z24570@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rob wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:11:15PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > > > Although according to Bliley its true basis is *only* the > commerce clause: > > > > > > Both the conduct and device provisions of section 1201 create > new rights in > > addition to those which Congress is authorized to recognize > under Article I, > > Section 8, Clause 8. As pointed out by the distinguished law professors > > quoted above, this legislation is really a `paracopyright' > measure. In this > > respect, then, the constitutional basis for legislating is the commerce > > clause, not the `copyright' clause. > > > > You chopped out the sentence immediately preceding the above passage: > > "In making our proposed recommendations, the Committee on Commerce acted > under both the `copyright' clause and the commerce clause." I thought it seemed that the last sentence is a clearer statement as to what 1201 is based on. 1st sentence = we acted under both copyright and commerce clauses. last sentence = 1201 is "paracopyright", which means that the commerce clause is 1201's constitutional basis. The last sentence is a clear declaration of the legislation's constitutional basis. Is the meaning of this statement substantially changed by the 1st sentence? The wording is subtly different, but it seems to me that the difference is meaning is substantial. sparky > > It should be mentioned here that Bliley was the Chairman of the Committee > on Commerce. > > -- > Rob Warren > > (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 19:07:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA12883 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:07:50 -0400 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 TAA12880 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:07:49 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-19.suba.com [206.69.121.211]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA12903 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:09:37 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:09:08 -0500 Message-ID: <001301bfd4c3$36394f60$c17945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <20000612191201.B24570@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rob wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:59:02PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > John wrote: > > > > > [cool-ass summary on the plausibility of the 7 minute miracle] > > > > We/ve got a response to that one then. The next experiments > someone should > > try - I personally have no DVD player/DVDs - would be against Schumann's > > playing of the decrypted movies with: PowerDVD, XingDVD, Windows > > MediaPlayer, and WinDVD. > > > > What are the technical problems with playing movies directly > from hard disk? > > Aren't there significant processing overhead issues (the reason > DVD players > > are little computers)? > > AFAIK, the reason software-based DVD players are so overhead-intensive is > because they're being decrypted in real-time. Beyond that, it's > an MPEG2 file. > I don't think you'd have the same CPU burden playing the output > of DeCSS that > you would playing a normal DVD. Anyone have the wherewithal to do some benchmarking? sp > > -- > Rob Warren > > (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 19:31:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA13089 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:31:04 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA13086 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:31:03 -0400 Received: (qmail 8611 invoked by uid 502); 12 Jun 2000 23:40:15 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:40:15 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Message-ID: <20000612194015.B8441@linuxpower.org> References: <20000612183106.Z24570@linuxpower.org> <001201bfd4c2$8b54d600$c17945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <001201bfd4c2$8b54d600$c17945ce@bugbug>; from sparky on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 06:04:21PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 06:04:21PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > Rob wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:11:15PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > > > > > Although according to Bliley its true basis is *only* the > > commerce clause: > > > > > > > > > Both the conduct and device provisions of section 1201 create > > new rights in > > > addition to those which Congress is authorized to recognize > > under Article I, > > > Section 8, Clause 8. As pointed out by the distinguished law professors > > > quoted above, this legislation is really a `paracopyright' > > measure. In this > > > respect, then, the constitutional basis for legislating is the commerce > > > clause, not the `copyright' clause. > > > > > > > You chopped out the sentence immediately preceding the above passage: > > > > "In making our proposed recommendations, the Committee on Commerce acted > > under both the `copyright' clause and the commerce clause." > > I thought it seemed that the last sentence is a clearer statement as to what > 1201 is based on. > 1st sentence = we acted under both copyright and commerce clauses. > last sentence = 1201 is "paracopyright", which means that the commerce > clause is 1201's constitutional basis. > > The last sentence is a clear declaration of the legislation's constitutional > basis. Is the meaning of this statement substantially changed by the 1st > sentence? The wording is subtly different, but it seems to me that the > difference is meaning is substantial. Bliley wasn't the only legislator throwing around the word "paracopyright". I think the last sentence has more to do with his position in government, trying to support why his committee drafted it. I don't really think it could be said that the DMCA is entirely a commerce issue, because it obviously has a foot (or at least a big toe) in copyright as well. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 19:39:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA13293 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:39:10 -0400 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 TAA13283 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:39:08 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-19.suba.com [206.69.121.211]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA13919 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:40:57 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:40:28 -0500 Message-ID: <001401bfd4c7$96a77300$c17945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <20000612194015.B8441@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Rob wrote: > [snip] > > Bliley wasn't the only legislator throwing around the word > "paracopyright". > I think the last sentence has more to do with his position in > government, trying > to support why his committee drafted it. I don't really think it could be > said that the DMCA is entirely a commerce issue, because it obviously has > a foot (or at least a big toe) in copyright as well. Hm. Well, it's definitely true about the Big Toe. "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act - OR, Commerce's Big Toe in the Closed Door of Copyright" I'd like to move that we change all forum references to 1201 to "Big Toe". All in favor? sparky > > -- > Rob Warren > > (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 19:57:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA13423 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:57:36 -0400 Received: from dial125.roadrunner.com (sf-du125.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.125]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA13420 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:57:33 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial125.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03805 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:59:45 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:59:44 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Message-ID: <20000612175944.C2214@localhost> References: <20000612183106.Z24570@linuxpower.org> <001201bfd4c2$8b54d600$c17945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <001201bfd4c2$8b54d600$c17945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 06:04:21PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 06:04:21PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > Rob wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:11:15PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > > > > > Although according to Bliley its true basis is *only* the > > commerce clause: > > > > > > > > > Both the conduct and device provisions of section 1201 create > > new rights in > > > addition to those which Congress is authorized to recognize > > under Article I, > > > Section 8, Clause 8. As pointed out by the distinguished law professors > > > quoted above, this legislation is really a `paracopyright' > > measure. In this > > > respect, then, the constitutional basis for legislating is the commerce > > > clause, not the `copyright' clause. > > > > > > > You chopped out the sentence immediately preceding the above passage: > > > > "In making our proposed recommendations, the Committee on Commerce acted > > under both the `copyright' clause and the commerce clause." > > I thought it seemed that the last sentence is a clearer statement as to what > 1201 is based on. > 1st sentence = we acted under both copyright and commerce clauses. > last sentence = 1201 is "paracopyright", which means that the commerce > clause is 1201's constitutional basis. > > The last sentence is a clear declaration of the legislation's constitutional > basis. Is the meaning of this statement substantially changed by the 1st > sentence? The wording is subtly different, but it seems to me that the > difference is meaning is substantial. [ ... ] > > It should be mentioned here that Bliley was the Chairman of the Committee > > on Commerce. This has been puzzling me for a while. The history of copyright in both England (since the Statute of Anne) and the U.S. has been that copyright is an industrial regulation. It _already_ is a commerce power, not in the sense of "commerce clause", but rather in the sense of being an actual regulation of commerce (and speech). If copyright started life as partly a commerce entity, then claiming that "adding more commerce" or taking the intersection of copyright and commerce get Bliley where? He already had commerce power in granting exclusive rights. Can someone tell me why Bliley thinks this will be anything other than a replay of the trade-mark cases? What little of the Congressional Record I've read (not nearly the whole report or testimony), I get the feeling that people throw the word "digital" around, claim the world is a radically different place based on this non-change, and then proceed to ignore the explicit limitations spelled out in the trade mark cases. Excuse me? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 20:04:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA13812 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:04:00 -0400 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA13809 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:03:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20000613000516.8761.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:05:16 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:05:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and 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: > You chopped out the sentence immediately preceding the above passage: > > "In making our proposed recommendations, the Committee on Commerce > acted under both the `copyright' clause and the commerce clause." Right, but there he's talking about the whole DMCA. Certainly 1201(b) is a copyright power exercise. I got the impression he was saying the access control stuff in 1201(a) was fundamentally different in line with the letter from a bunch of law professors that he was refering to. > It should be mentioned here that Bliley was the Chairman of the > Committee on Commerce. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 20:19:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14047 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:19:23 -0400 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 UAA14044 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:19:21 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (jdsl248.dnvr.uswest.net [206.196.156.248]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA24777 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39457D3F.CD13C46C@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:16:00 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> <20000612175342.W24570@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 was just looking through the FAQ for this because honestly I don't remember, > but did we decide that there were some DVDs out there that weren't CSSed? If > so, that sort of blows a hole in this line of reasoning. > > Players or discs? If discs, yes, of course, there are discs that do not use CSS or region codes. Players, no. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 20:19:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:19:34 -0400 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 UAA14053 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:19:32 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06889; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:21:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:21:23 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006130021.UAA06889@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <000401bfd4b3$7df4e860$c17945ce@bugbug> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "sparky" wrote: > > >What I'm getting at is this: if we say that decryption is not necessary for >piracy, counter to the main thrust of Schumann's claim, plaintiffs will come >back, "It is necessary, as we've doctored the media." My question is asking >if there's a way in legal lingo to turn that statement against them. Is it a >permissable statement? Does the fact that a doctored medium, not CSS, >ensures the necessity of decryption, mean that CSS is not really a >protection covered by 1201? If the fact of the doctored media can be made >irrelevant, then decryption clearly is not necessary to pirate and will only >become less necessary as tech advances. Meanwhile, other fair uses of >decryption are clear, as tech advances (compatibility reasons). If you want to transfer a DVD to a DVD-R or some other media for any purpose, then you obviously must decrypt as I understand it. [Assuming you ever want to be able to decrypt it.] But if you just use the same method that the original DVD was made to make your copy, then you no longer need to decrypt the DVD prior to making the copy. This is the method the real pirates are currently using. So, if you want to produce another DVD disk, no decryption is needed or even desirable. Decryption is needed when you want to view the movie from some other medium becides the original (or clone) DVD disk. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 20:21:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14216 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:21:50 -0400 Received: from shaft.bitmine.net (root@shaft.bitmine.net [216.231.58.163]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14213 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:21:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (jbrelin@localhost) by shaft.bitmine.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) with ESMTP id RAA09028 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:23:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:23:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeme A Brelin X-Sender: jbrelin@shaft.bitmine.net To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time In-Reply-To: <20000612130935.F722@zork.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 Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Except maybe they are saying that DeCSS can be used to decrypt the > encrypted VOBs that might have been burned to a consumer-grade DVD (or > posted to the net) by someone who was _not_ a DeCSS user, and just > did "tar czf /tmp/my-dvd.tar.gz /mnt/dvd/video_ts/". (This first > step wouldn't be 1201(a) circumvention, just plain old illegal copying.) Why would it be illegal copying? tar czf /tmp/my-dvd.tar.gz /mnt/dvd/video_ts/ Isn't that just media shifting? Totally legal. How does DMCA address this? As I understand it, this case revolves around the distribution and linking of DeCSS, yes? What, exactly, is the legal burden of the plaintiff in this case? Can we enumerate these burdens and try to speak toward which burden our ideas address when submitting notions to the list? Just thoughts. Je. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 20:29:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14311 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:29:26 -0400 Received: from dial142.roadrunner.com (sf-du142.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.142]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14308 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:29:24 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial142.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA04075 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:32:03 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:32:02 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Message-ID: <20000612183201.A3974@localhost> References: <20000612183106.Z24570@linuxpower.org> <001201bfd4c2$8b54d600$c17945ce@bugbug> <20000612175944.C2214@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000612175944.C2214@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:59:44PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:59:44PM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: [ ... ] > He already had commerce power in granting exclusive rights. Can someone > tell me why Bliley thinks this will be anything other than a replay of > the trade-mark cases? 1. The trade mark cases addressed a new class of "works". The DMCA enacts a new right of the copyright owner. 2. ??? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 20:32:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14379 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:32:47 -0400 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 UAA14376 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:32:46 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06964; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:34:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:34:37 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006130034.UAA06964@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chris Moseng wrote: >>I think this will not help us.. mainly because DeCSS isn't a player, >>but a decryptor. it deposits decrypted copies of the DVD movie on your >>hard drive. > >Actually, I think I've begun to manage to seperate access and >playback... But I still think in this case the authorization to access >the work comes with the appropriate use of a licensed DVD player (odious >as the idea is). Please correct me if I'm still misunderstanding. > >If the Xing player was once legitimate, and this is the player I use to >play back my DVDs I am granted access by operating the player. If the >player is crippled in some way in the future it is a result of the >CSS-licensees. The crippling in this case comes in a loss of access, as >it will probably play non CSSd DVDs. The manufacturers loss of the CSS >license should not have any impact on the end user unless the end user >is somehow informed of the revocation of access rights (and the MPAA >should come in and take it away, because it will still play OLDER >movies). > >Unless they can explain why a manufacturer losing a license revokes the >access rights of every consumer of the once legitimately-licensed >product. As a matter of fact, the player was manufactured with a legit >license that was then revoked retroactively. If the consumer is granted >access on the one hand under the assumption that the player will last >its useful lifetime, but then the useful lifetime is reduced ex post >facto... Of course their marketing spin will be something like... These new DVDs contain new exciting features that only newer DVD players can understand. And most of the public will probly buy it. :-( -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 20:46:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14775 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:46:07 -0400 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 UAA14772 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:46:06 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07082; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:47:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:47:57 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006130047.UAA07082@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Deposition questions Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <20000612141218.I722@zork.net> References: <20000612205417.1819.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> <20000612171435.S24570@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth David Schoen wrote: >greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > >> It would be enlightening to ask the question nonetheless. Of course the >> plaintiffs would engage in historical revisionism; we'd be disappointed in >> them if they didn't. But asking the question *would* put them in a position >> where the claim would have to be backed up with evidence. >> >> The question would then be: "As of October 1999, how were these authorization >> restrictions communicated to the DVD owner?" > >Has anybody asked the defense lawyers to ask this in depositions? > Should we be collecting a list of questions to ask during the various depositions? -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 20:56:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14925 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:56:39 -0400 Received: from MIT.EDU (SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.72.1.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA14922 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:56:38 -0400 Received: from GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA11892; Mon, 12 Jun 00 20:58:16 EDT Received: from melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.45]) by grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA13846 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oobleck.mit.edu (OOBLECK.MIT.EDU [18.54.0.122]) by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA13218 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethf@localhost) by oobleck.mit.edu (8.9.3) id UAA02731; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006130058.UAA02731@oobleck.mit.edu> From: Seth Finkelstein To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. In-Reply-To: <20000612175935.X24570@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > Our good friends in Washington did a sort of ball-and-cup game when they > passed the DMCA. They didn't claim it to be purely part of the copyright > clause; it was claimed to be done under the authority of the commerce > clause as well. > > FAQ 2.3.2: > > http://www.cssfaq.org/dvd-discuss-faq.html#ss2.3.2 Can one of the lawyers please clarify something about this? The actual text of the DMCA doesn't mention the commerce clause, or have any "interstate commerce" language. It only says: "An Act To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes." I assume "for other purposes" can involve the commerce clause, even if not explicitly mentioned. But since it specifically mentions implementing the WIPO treaty, doesn't that make it more of an Article VI topic: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Web Programmer sethf@mit.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 21:04:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA15091 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:04:13 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA15088 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:04:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20000613010533.3264.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:05:33 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:05:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time 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 there a least restrictive means test in copyright law? > > Yes, several in fact: "fair use", the non-copyrightability of ideas > > and facts, and the merger principle. > Hmmm, that's not quite the same as "least restrictive means", though. Well, I was trying to be cute. Each of them, though, does follow from the fact that Free Speech must not be abridged, even in the name of a legitimate state interest, if it can be avoided. > The commerce power limits are not the same as "least restrictive > means". You found two recent cases showing a trend toward requiring > actual proof of interstate or foreign commerce before something can > be regulated. But those precedents don't have any consequences for > limiting the _scope and content_ of the regulations, once genuine > interstate commerce is found. Actually, what the quote from Jones said was basically: if forced to pick among equally valid interpretations, judges should pick the ones that avoid Constitutional questions. This may be called something else, but it basically means if Congress doesn't spell it out you pick the least restrictive means to implement it. > DeCSS does have commercially significant uses, and it's distributed > on the Internet (i.e. interstate and foreign distribution). I submit > that these precedents would not prevent it from being regulated, nor > would they say anything about the scope of the regulations. I'm not so sure about the 'commercially significant uses'. First off, the standard, which Thomas is trying hard to make a lot tougher, is that their must be 'substantial effect' on commerce. DeCSS is free, so the only direct impact to commerce would be the way in which it's used (ie there's no commerce from selling it). But when you talk about use, you can talk about 'fair use' - which DeCSS is (ala Betamax). Fair use includes a measure of commercial impact in two of it's four crition. The bottom line seems to be that the use has commercial impact if it affects the profits. In the Sony case the court found "the two respondents in this case, who do assert objections to time-shifting in this litigation, were unable to prove that the practice has impaired the commercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm. " In summary, it seems like if you can prove that you win on the two commercial aspects of fair use, you would seem to have proved that Congress cannot apply the commerce power either. This presents a really obvious standard for 'fair access': just take the two commercial aspects of fair use. > Or do you think that "commercially significant use" will no longer be > enough, because the distribution of something for free is still not > in itself "commerce", and the new precedents will lead to a lack of > Federal regulations (under the Commerce Clause) on anything that's > given away for free? That's half of the picture. Commercial impact exists by generating revenue yourself or by impacting somebody else's ability to generate revenue. The former is obviously not occuring here, because it is given away for free. The later basically means winning on the piracy argument. > > The odd thing is that our First amendment defense is statutory as > > well as Constitutional, being based on 1201(c)(4) and 1203(b)(1). > > Did Judge Kaplan just ignore that outright, because he wasn't > convinced that computer software is a form of speech? He didn't address either clause specifically. I suspect that he had forgotten about them. It IS a new law and the defence didn't seem to focus on them, and the plaintiffs sure as hell weren't going to point them out. I think the "hey we're arguing statuory free speech, not just Constitutional free speech" is a winner. Congress already did the 'balancing'. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 21:09:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA15156 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:09:57 -0400 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 VAA15153 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:09:56 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07310; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:11:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:11:47 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006130111.VAA07310@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jeme A Brelin wrote: > >This is a bit esoteric and possibly out of line for a first-time post, but >I've had a burning question for the last few months. > >In searching for the roots of all of these current problems facing users >of data communications and related technology, I thought it might be >interesting to find out how copyright got its start in the U.S. and by >what legal means (and for what purpose) copyright exists as U.S. law. > >So here's my thought: > >The Constitution, in enumerating the powers of Congress in Article I >Section 8, grants Congress the ability to enact copyright as follows: > >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; > >This is cited commonly because it is a rare case in constitutional >law: The purpose of the provision is given right alongside its >description. > >I've heard this used (specifically in the Eldred v. Reno case) as an >argument that copyright must serve the public good. But I think it's more >than that. > >Can we not contest the DMCA in the Supreme Court with the argument that it >does NOT "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? > >Indeed, can't we argue that "science and the useful arts" specifically >limits copyright to those fields of endeavor and therefore the fine arts >have no justifiable copyright claims? > >It is the nature of fine art to feed upon itself, reflect both itself and >culture in general, and comment on the human condition. Copyright on fine >arts is contrary to this notion and is not provided for under the >Constitution. > >I have much more to say on this topic and have an eighty percent written >article that I'm considering submitting to some online news outlets. > >Does this interest anyone? Has it been covered and dismissed? Here is some info on Fine Arts vs. Useful Arts. http://www.comptons.com/encyclopedia/ARTICLES/0000/00122368_A.html http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.heckel.org/IPC_Supreme_Court_Briefs/Nard.html -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 21:41:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA16125 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:41:12 -0400 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 VAA16122 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:41:11 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA17408 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:43:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:43:01 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612204301.B17318@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <000401bfd4b3$7df4e860$c17945ce@bugbug> <200006130021.UAA06889@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <200006130021.UAA06889@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com>; from jfbauer@home.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 08:21:23PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 08:21:23PM -0400, Jim Bauer wrote: > > If you want to transfer a DVD to a DVD-R or some other media for any > purpose, then you obviously must decrypt as I understand it. > [Assuming you ever want to be able to decrypt it.] That's mostly true, but for simplicity reasons rather than technical ones. There's nothing that would prevent someone from writing programs that could copy the original, encrypted files and then duplicate the key sector in a file or another, non-standard disc location. If the target media was a DVD, the resulting disc would never play in any licensed player, of course; you'd need to tweak an unlicensed player to use your home-rolled key sector. I doubt anyone would ever bother, though, since it'd be much more effective to just strip the encryption. The only reason I could imagine would be if the CPU cycles needed to decrypt 4-8 GB of data was somehow prohibitive. If you wanted to make backups of DVDs to tape, for example, you might go this route simply because it's faster. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 22:56:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA16827 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:56:51 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA16824 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:56:49 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131guV-0003S2-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:58:39 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:58:39 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000612195839.Q722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> <200006130034.UAA06964@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006130034.UAA06964@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com>; from jfbauer@home.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 08:34:37PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jim Bauer writes: > Of course their marketing spin will be something like... > > These new DVDs contain new exciting features that > only newer DVD players can understand. > > And most of the public will probly buy it. :-( That could be _true_. I heard an allegation on one list that some hardware vendors had a list of pending new features which they kept out of their products "in case of emergency", so if they really needed to go to a new version and get as many people as possible to upgrade, they'd just put out a new version, with some genuine new features, and also some undocumented changes. I don't imagine that this is standard practice, but it's got to be possible to do. -- 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 Jun 12 23:00:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA16945 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:00:47 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA16942 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:00:46 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04218 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:02:25 -0500 Message-ID: <3945A3CA.4D76C98F@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:00:26 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Deposition questions References: <20000612205417.1819.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> <20000612171435.S24570@linuxpower.org> <200006130047.UAA07082@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.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 I would like to hear answers to these questions from the plaintiffs: 1. When is a consumer granted access rights to copyrighted content on DVDs? 2. What, specifically, are the rights that the plaintiffs grant with regard to access? 3. How do the plaintiffs communicate the right to access copyrighted material on a DVD to the consumer at first sale? 4. Under what circumstances would access rights be revoked from a DVD owner? 5. How do the plaintiffs communicate these limitations to the consumer at first sale? 6. Is it possible for a consumer to have the right to access copyrighted material on a DVD produced by the plaintiffs, but be disallowed access on an otherwise operational, currently existing DVD player? 7. Could the plaintiffs bring about such a circumstance through a. modification of the CSS specification, b. through a modification in the production of DVDs or c. through the revocation of a manufacturer's CSS license? 8. How do or would the plaintiffs communicate revocation of the right to access work on a DVD to the consumer? 9. What happens to the right to access after first sale? Do the plaintiffs retain the power to grant the right to access, or is that power transferred to the owner of the copy? 10. If the plaintiffs retain the right to grant access rights through first and subsequent sales, how do the plaintiffs communicate the right and its limitations to the subsequent purchaser? ------------------------ Please take these and run with them. These are significant questions re CSS and the DMCA as I see it, but may not be immediately useful for the defense of this case... That is an area I'm still working on understanding. I'm particularly concerned that the plaintiffs will state that failure of the DVD drive to decrypt a CSS-scrambled DVD will be their method of informing the consumer that their right to access the material has been revoked. On the other hand, it would be quite a phenomenal thing to say. It would reveal a method for forced upgrades. It would also suggest that users who have a legitimate access right may be unable to access the material unless with a DeCSS program or unlicensed (rogue) DVD player. Question four is a nice one because the answer might be "never," the answer may be "after the copy they accessed is found to violate copyright," or it is a depiction of what the plaintiffs plan to do with their right such as "when we want to force them to upgrade," or "when we lose this case and CSS is no longer valuable," or "we don't know when we would revoke access rights, we'll decide that on a case-by-case basis," or something similarly revealing and damaging. Be careful with a question like #6, where the plaintiffs might define an operational DVD player as one with a current and valid CSS license, not simply a machine that plays back DVDs using lasers and MPEG2 decompression. Maybe a preliminary question would be how the plaintiffs define an operational DVD player. Thanks for all the feedback and commentary on my messages so far. Chris ____________ For any of the plaintiffs or their representatives reading this message, I revoked your rights to access it when I clicked the send button, it having been scrambled in the SMTP/TCP/IP protocol method. Sorry. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 23:16:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA17094 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:16:26 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA17091 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:16:25 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:21:40 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DA9@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:21:32 -0400 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 What if you want to pirate a DVD, but just change region codes? Do you need to decrypt then? -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bauer [mailto:jfbauer@home.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 8:21 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time So, if you want to produce another DVD disk, no decryption is needed or even desirable. Decryption is needed when you want to view the movie from some other medium becides the original (or clone) DVD disk. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 23:27:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA17257 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:27:56 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA17254 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:27:55 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:33:10 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DAB@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:33:06 -0400 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 Not as a lawyer, but a cspan junkie, the "...for other purposes" is a phrase that exists in any amended legislation (in other words, nearly everything). Translate it as "pay our campaign debts" or "appease the opposition." -----Original Message----- From: Seth Finkelstein [mailto:sethf@MIT.EDU] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 8:58 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Constitution and Copyright. Can one of the lawyers please clarify something about this? The actual text of the DMCA doesn't mention the commerce clause, or have any "interstate commerce" language. It only says: "An Act To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes." I assume "for other purposes" can involve the commerce clause, even if not explicitly mentioned. But since it specifically mentions implementing the WIPO treaty.... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 12 23:28:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA17331 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:28:39 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA17327 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:28:38 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131hPI-0003cP-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:30:28 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:30:28 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612203028.R722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000612130935.F722@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jeme@brelin.net on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:23:37PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jeme A Brelin writes: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > Except maybe they are saying that DeCSS can be used to decrypt the > > encrypted VOBs that might have been burned to a consumer-grade DVD (or > > posted to the net) by someone who was _not_ a DeCSS user, and just > > did "tar czf /tmp/my-dvd.tar.gz /mnt/dvd/video_ts/". (This first > > step wouldn't be 1201(a) circumvention, just plain old illegal copying.) > > Why would it be illegal copying? > > tar czf /tmp/my-dvd.tar.gz /mnt/dvd/video_ts/ > > Isn't that just media shifting? Totally legal. Did you see "burned to a consumer-grade DVD (or posted to the net)" in my message? That copying is illegal if you're doing it in order to distribute copies illegally. Media-shifting is often legal for personal use, but not as part of a larger campaign of piracy. > How does DMCA address this? It doesn't. -- 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 Jun 12 23:44:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA17495 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:44:33 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA17492 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:44:32 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW2005SVQER6P@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:17:39 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-reply-to: <8i3bqi$5jc$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW2005SWQER6P@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 article <0FW1005CVXZPXJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net>, > Paul Hsieh wrote: > > Usually, data which is compressed once > > will not compress very well when you try to compress it again. > > You forgot about lossy compression! I ddin't forget about it, I just deferred it, as it is falls under a different category of discussion. The lossy methods also inevitably lead to degraded quality. > If you are trying to make the case that Gronich's declaration > is technically weak, this seems to be a bad example to pick. I was just responding to what was written. I am nothing approximating a lawyer, I am just a technical guy trying to help with what I know. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 00:24:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA17822 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:24:24 -0400 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 AAA17819 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:24:23 -0400 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 VAA24033 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:23:55 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA08665; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:23:03 -0700 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] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: 12 Jun 2000 21:21:58 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 11 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8i4ct6$8eo$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <8i3bqi$5jc$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <0FW2005SWQER6P@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <0FW2005SWQER6P@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > You forgot about lossy compression! > > I ddin't forget about it, I just deferred it, > as it is falls under a different category of > discussion. Then we agree that Gronich's statement is technically correct? If so, then what was the basis for the claim that Gronich's declaration is getting the technical facts wrong? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 00:28:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA17980 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:28:40 -0400 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 AAA17977 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:28:39 -0400 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 VAA24062 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:28:12 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA08691; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:27:20 -0700 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] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: 12 Jun 2000 21:27:10 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 25 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8i4d6u$8fi$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <3945410C.33CFCFF6@uic.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <3945410C.33CFCFF6@uic.edu>, John Schulien wrote: > >> She really doesn't know much about the technology huh? Take > >> for instance her statement that mpeg can be compressed and then > >> transmitted, and DeCSS enables copying. > > > > What's wrong with that statement? > > The first part is technically inaccurate, or at the very least > misleading. > > MPEG is already a compressed format. One of the basic > "facts of life" about compression is that, with few exceptions, > compressed data is itself uncompressable. Nonsense. You, too, seem to have forgotten about lossy compression. Now, her statement may be misleading. It may leave out some things. It may appear to be a case of taking the facts and putting them in the light which is most favorable to her position. All of those complaints might well be valid ones. BUT, the facts still seem correct. I still can't see where these claims about technical errors are coming from. (e.g.: "she really doesn't know much about the technology") From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 00:38:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA18144 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:38:40 -0400 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 AAA18141 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:38:39 -0400 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 VAA24097 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:38:12 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA08736; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:37:20 -0700 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] non-infringing use Date: 12 Jun 2000 21:37:10 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 31 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8i4dpm$8gv$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> <20000612143908.L722@zork.net> <20000612180735.Y24570@linuxpower.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000612180735.Y24570@linuxpower.org>, wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:39:08PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > Ohh. This very nice. Perhaps this is an argument that CSS simply > > > isn't a 1201(a) access control. If someone other than the copyright > > > holder can impair the access mechanism, it might follow that the > > > mechanism can't be fit into 1201(a)(3). Is this a _counter example_ > > > to "with authority of the copyright owner"? The answer to that point > > > will depend in part on what the studio/DVD-CCA licenses say. > > > > I'm afraid there is a secret contract somewhere which says that the > > studios are permanently delegating to the DVD CCA a non-exclusive > > right to grant/administer/revoke authority to decrypt the studios' > > content, together with the granting, administration, and revocation of > > CSS licenses. > > > > Yeah, consumers wouldn't know anything about this, but the studios > > might say that there is no reason they should. How would you answer > > that? > > I'd answer it by pointing out that if such authorizing agreements are > kept secret, then the consumer has no way at all of knowing whether or > not they are authorized to use the material. So, under this theory, all the plaintiffs have to do to avoid this pitfall is to publish their licenses, contracts, and agreements? It doesn't sound like much of a saving grace for defendants. I suspect that if all plaintiffs have to do to win this case (and every one after it) is to publish their licenses, they'd leap at the chance... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 00:56:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA18319 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:56:53 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA18316 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:56:52 -0400 Received: (qmail 10514 invoked by uid 502); 13 Jun 2000 05:06:19 -0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:06:19 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000613010619.E8441@linuxpower.org> References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> <20000612143908.L722@zork.net> <20000612180735.Y24570@linuxpower.org> <8i4dpm$8gv$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: <8i4dpm$8gv$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from David A. Wagner on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:37:10PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:37:10PM -0700, David A. Wagner wrote: > In article <20000612180735.Y24570@linuxpower.org>, > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:39:08PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > > Ohh. This very nice. Perhaps this is an argument that CSS simply > > > > isn't a 1201(a) access control. If someone other than the copyright > > > > holder can impair the access mechanism, it might follow that the > > > > mechanism can't be fit into 1201(a)(3). Is this a _counter example_ > > > > to "with authority of the copyright owner"? The answer to that point > > > > will depend in part on what the studio/DVD-CCA licenses say. > > > > > > I'm afraid there is a secret contract somewhere which says that the > > > studios are permanently delegating to the DVD CCA a non-exclusive > > > right to grant/administer/revoke authority to decrypt the studios' > > > content, together with the granting, administration, and revocation of > > > CSS licenses. > > > > > > Yeah, consumers wouldn't know anything about this, but the studios > > > might say that there is no reason they should. How would you answer > > > that? > > > > I'd answer it by pointing out that if such authorizing agreements are > > kept secret, then the consumer has no way at all of knowing whether or > > not they are authorized to use the material. > > So, under this theory, all the plaintiffs have to do to avoid this > pitfall is to publish their licenses, contracts, and agreements? > It doesn't sound like much of a saving grace for defendants. > > I suspect that if all plaintiffs have to do to win this case (and every > one after it) is to publish their licenses, they'd leap at the chance... Well, it doesn't much matter if they do it *now*. :) The whole basis of this case is the claim that 2600 posted a program designed to provide "unauthorized" access to DVD material. DeCSS has been in circulation now for eight months. The issue is whether 2600 could reasonably have known that DeCSS provided "unauthorized" access to DVD material, from a strict legal standpoint, assuming that's what it does. Once again, using the analogy of the speeding ticket, publishing the licenses and then saying "See? It's unauthorized!" would be the equivalent of posting speed limit signs eight months after you got the ticket and then claiming that they prove you were in violation of the law. Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 01:32:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA18959 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:32:14 -0400 Received: from dial149.roadrunner.com (dial149.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.149] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA18956 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:32:12 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial149.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA05001 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:34:23 -0600 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:34:22 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Message-ID: <20000612233421.A4888@localhost> References: <20000612145752.A2214@localhost> <000501bfd4b4$66f383a0$c17945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <000501bfd4b4$66f383a0$c17945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:23:07PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 04:23:07PM -0500, sparky wrote: [ ... ] > I think we're talking about the same thing here, and I think the doctored > blank DVD media are the way to drive the point home. > > IF NOT "doctored media", THEN NOT "css = access control". > > What I am interested in is finding a way of eliminating "doctored media", on > an argumentative level. Obviously they exist. Is there a way to make the > fact of their existence immaterial? Is it tying? Is the mere fact that they > exist mean that the necessity of decryption for piracy has nothing to do > with CSS, but with artificial limitations on DVD tech market? (Was that > there perhaps the right way to say it?) That would be the better approach, > to make the fact work for us. Is there a way to make this fact work for us? Q: Is CSS a copy control system? A: Yes. Q: But if I make a bit-for-bit copy, I can ignore CSS and still make the copy. How can you call CSS copy control? A: It was never intended to stop this kind of piracy; we are more concerned about the internet and digital data. Many-to-many piracy is going to destroy the movie industry if we don't have measures like CSS to protect our works. You can't kill every bird with one stone. Q: Well, a system may fail in a number of ways in certain circumstances and work properly in others. Why should I call a system that fails by being AWOL, rather than being cracked, a copy control system? In other words, if one need expend _no_ effort at all to "subvert" a purported copy control system, what point is there to calling it copy control? A: Because it prevents users from copying the encrypted files over the internet and having them work. Q: But that sound to me like denying access after unauthorized copying. That means that the copying has taken place. How can you call this copy control? A: What's the difference? -- you can't play the copy, so it's effective copy control. Q: So you admit that the effective part of CSS is the access control and not a copy control? A: I didn't say that. I said it was "effective copy control." You're twisting my words. You don't understand. The internet and digital data are special. No. I understand exactly. Alice carefully released the brush and did her best to get the hair into order. "Come, you look rather better now!" she said, after altering most of the pins. "But really you should have a lady's-maid!" "I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Twopence a week, and jam every other day." Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire _me_ --- and I don't care for jam." "It's very good jam," said the Queen. "Well, I don't want any _to-day_, at any rate." "You couldn't have it if you _did_ want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday --- but never jam to-day." "It _must_ come sometimes to 'jam to-day,'" Alice objected. "No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every _other_ day: to-day isn't any _other_ day, you know." And CSS is copy control. Why else doesn't that copy you made work? Why, because you are denied access to the work. Just what do the MPAA think the words "copy" and "access" mean? Why its jam every _other_ day! Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 01:36:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA19141 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:36:21 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA19138 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:36:20 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA16924 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:37:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3945CA22.8699D4ED@mninter.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:44:02 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> <20000612143908.L722@zork.net> <20000612180735.Y24570@linuxpower.org> <8i4dpm$8gv$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <20000613010619.E8441@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 > Well, it doesn't much matter if they do it *now*. :) > > The whole basis of this case is the claim that 2600 posted a program > designed to provide "unauthorized" access to DVD material. DeCSS >has been in circulation now for eight months. The issue is whether >2600 could reasonably have known that DeCSS provided "unauthorized" >access to DVD material, from a strict legal standpoint, assuming that's >what it does. > > Once again, using the analogy of the speeding ticket, publishing the > licenses and then saying "See? It's unauthorized!" would be >the equivalent of posting speed limit signs eight months after you got >the ticket and then claiming that they prove you were in violation of >the law. Further, once they make clear their criteria for access authorization they can be subjected to collusion investigations or other scrutiny regarding their "access license," including using the "access license" to directly challenge the constitutionality of 1201. The question of unauthorized access cannot be addressed until it is clear what is authorized. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 01:55:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA19271 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:55:27 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA19268 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:55:25 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW2004PXVN9CJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:10:41 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-reply-to: <8i4ct6$8eo$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW2004PYVN9CJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 article <0FW2005SWQER6P@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>, > Paul Hsieh wrote: > > > You forgot about lossy compression! > > > > I ddin't forget about it, I just deferred it, > > as it is falls under a different category of > > discussion. > > Then we agree that Gronich's statement is technically correct? I have looked up the declaration -- in its present context I would have to concurr. The full statement is actually: "3. I take strong exception to defendants' claim that DeCSS does not cause, contribute to or facilitate the unauthorized copying or "piracy" of motion picture films. As has been widely reported in the media, the technology already exists to compress and transmit sizeable files over the Internet, including files containing feature-length motion pictures. A number of these new technologies are explained in detail in the accompanying declaration of Robert Schumann and I respectfully refer the Court to that declaration." If I am correct she is referring to the fact the Schumann points out the possible usage of the DivX compression codec (which, as I understand it, is a mysteriously recently leaked technology from Microsoft ... does anyone have more info on this codec?) If she wants to take exception that's her right. But if we are intent on responding, we need to clarify this to make sure that it is understood that she is objecting to the use of DivX as a means of retransmitting a movie. (Then, of course, we have to nail this DVD -> DivX -> retransmission argument to the wall.) > If so, then what was the basis for the claim that Gronich's declaration > is getting the technical facts wrong? Dunno. But here's my take on what she said: "4. The sole and admitted function of DeCSS is to decrypt CSS (in this case. motion picture films released on CSS-encrypted DVD discs). DeCSS is a key element in the new wave of socalled file-sharing technologies that make it possible for millions of computer users to decrypt, compress, transmit and reproduce unauthorized copies of motion picture films over the Internet." This is not technically correct. For a scheme which involves the recompression of the DVD stream to a lower quality format, it is unnecessary to involve DeCSS. Since the quality is degraded, it only is required that the input quality is sufficiently higher than the target quality. In this case use of a video capture card is a wholly sufficient replacement for DeCSS. (Note that a video capture card has no bearing or relationship to CSS or DeCSS whatsoever.) "5. I am aware of the impact that Napster and like systems have had on the audio recording industry [...] Given the exponential growth of these so-called file-sharing technologies among computer users in the mainstream, there is a real likelihood that the injury caused by vast numbers of people trading unauthorized copies of films and other entertainment products over the Internet will dwarf more "traditional," commercial piracy operations." This may or may not be true, but DeCSS is not Napster. It should be pointed out that nobody in the recording industry is going after MusicMatch, which is a very popular and powerful CD audio -> MP3 converter. So even if you believe that DeCSS has a role in the potential piracy of DVD content, there is no precedent in any of the cases involving Napster or mp3.com that have any bearing on DeCSS. (This may not be true, since I hear that the author of the Blade Mp3 encoder has gotten himself into legal trouble -- that will have to be followed up.) "7. [...] The fact is that unauthorized decryption of CSS-protected DVD movies makes it possible for persons to engage in widespread acts of copyright infringement. [...]" This has not been established, and is disputed by the defence. "7 [...] Nothing defendants say about the sanctity of their rights of free speech changes that reality or the threat to my company's business taht results from such acts." This may also be correct, however, only in the sense that DeCSS is not a threat at all, an indeed there is nothing the defence will say that will change that. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 02:31:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA19593 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:31:24 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA19590 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:31:23 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW200ATQY602B@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:05:15 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Analysis of Schumann's declaration. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW200ATRY602B@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 CAA19591 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu As long as I am looking at these declarations ... (hmm upon reflection, this has been discussed here already hasn't it? ... anyways, here are my thoughts:) "3. Defendants claim that there is no evidence of copying or piracy as a result of the use of DeCSS. In doing so, defendants ignore one fundamental truth which is inescapable - - that DeCSS is designed and functions to decrypt and copy the DVD content to the computer hard drive. [...]" By "copying" defendent mean "illegal copying" or "copying for the purposes of piracy". The management of files or data on a single user's machine may involve "copying", however this is clearly not directly relevant to the case at hand. Crucial the prosecution's argument is that DeCSS somehow promote the copying of the data from one user's machine to another. "4. Defendants premise that DeCSS does not enable "piracy" is mistaken unless defendants intend to exclude the real threat faced by content owners in the Internet era: the unauthorized copying and transmission by and among a vast number of individual computer users of copyrighted works utilizing compression technologies that enable a considerable amount of data to be copied, stored and transferred in a much more manageable form. [...]" The compression technologies that would allow a DVD to retransmitted in a usable way (the use of the DivX codec for example, or simple a compression down to MPEG-1 or whatever) is necessarily lossy. The the "considerable amount of data" being copied is also *considerably* less than what is actually on the DVD, and *considerably* lower quality. Lossless compression methods would at best yeild a few percent size savings, due to the high amount of entropy in a compressed MPEG-2 file. But we claim that transmission of raw DVD data is not practical. "5. As explained below, the explosive growth of the Internet as a means to 'pirate' copyrighted works of entertainment does not depend, at all, upon the creation of counterfeit discs but, instead, relies entirely on computer-based storage and file transfer technologies [...] For example, the well-known "Napster' system over which there has been considerable press coverage [...] also has a recently released variant, referred to as "Wrapster," which enables the digital copying and Internet transmission of other types of copyrighted material including audiovisual works." But this does not directly tie into DeCSS since video capture cards can play the same role. "6. Even more threatening, however, is the emergence of high ratio compression technologies, such as DivX. This compression technology enables users to take a full length movie and "shrink" it considerably in size, far reducing the amount of storage space and transfer time required to make a movie available on the Internet" The DivX codec will cause a serious degradation in the quality of the DVD (I have seen some of its results -- being a DVD owner, I would have to say that the DivX output is *far* inferior to the quality of pure DVD.) So at best it could make a "derivative" of the DVD movie available on the net. Once again, it is not necessary for DeCSS to be involved in this scheme. "7. Moreover, while the various [...]" This is the 7MM, which has been discussed here at length. "15. Defendants also contend that one need not use DeCSS to achieve this result. Chris DiBona's Declaration, ¶¶ 16-21 suggests that even a CSS licensed DVD player enables copying of the file data into the hard drive. What Mr. DiBona does not make clear in his declaration, however, is that this data remains encrypted and thus, cannot be played from the hard drive, at least in a CSS licensed DVD player. [...]" However it is not required to use a CSS licenced DVD player to play a DVD. The Livid player, which is not licenced, can also play DVDs. (We need to verify that Livid can play the encrypted files directly -- I believe it almost certainly can.) Thus the claim that it cannot be played from the hard drive, is wrong. It should also be possible to create a proxy device under Windows to virtualize the hard drive in such a way as to make a hard drive directory to appear to be a DVD drive to a DVD player. (This needs to be verified by either a CSS licensee or someone familliar with Windows disk drive drivers.) "16. Although defendants justify the indiscriminate proliferation of DeCSS as part of a legitimate reverse engineering effort to develop an unlicensed Linux-based DVD player, the fact remains that unrestricted distribution of this utility does little to serve such a reverse engineering process, for a number of reasons. First, the premise that DeCSS has value in analyzing the operation of the DVD player itself is suspect. There are a considerable number of DVD discs that are released without CSS encryption and can be and have been used in the development of the DVD player function. [...]" A CSS licenced DVD player contains CSS decryption code. This functionality cannot be duplicated without some degree of reverse engineering of the CSS algorithm. "17. This becomes even more apparent when one considers the proliferation of DeCSS in object code form. As Mr. Wagner acknowledges, there is little to be discerned from object code iterations of DeCSS: "[H]igh-level source code is much easier for humans to understand than the low-level computer instructions found in DVD players"" It is true that the dissemination of DeCSS object code has nothing to do with studying the CSS encyption, or integration of CSS decryption code into the Livid player. However, the DeCSS object code can be used for beta testing purposes on Windows (which is the most widely available computer platform.) If DeCSS has errors in it that prevent proper decryption in some cases, or if somehow an encrypted DVD that can be played on any licenced DVD player but not properly decrypted by the css-auth code is released by the motion picture industry, then this can be reported by end users who have access to the troublesome DVD. This sort of "trial by fire" testing of software is common practice in the "OpenSource" community, and represents an essential part of their development process. etc., etc. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 02:31:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA19603 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:31:45 -0400 Received: from h0050da62b39d.ne.mediaone.net (root@h0050da62b39d.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.219.153]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA19600 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:31:44 -0400 Received: from mit.edu (IDENT:ravi_n@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by h0050da62b39d.ne.mediaone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16254; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:38:45 -0400 Message-ID: <3945D6F5.4B05EC83@mit.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:38:45 -0400 From: Ravi Nanavati X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] BladeEnc legal troubles (was Re: Impressions of Gronich decl) 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 Hsieh wrote: > It should be pointed out that nobody in the recording industry is going after > MusicMatch, which is a very popular and powerful CD audio -> MP3 converter. > So even if you believe that DeCSS has a role in the potential piracy of DVD > content, there is no precedent in any of the cases involving Napster or mp3.com > that have any bearing on DeCSS. (This may not be true, since I hear that the > author of the Blade Mp3 encoder has gotten himself into legal trouble -- that will > have to be followed up.) BladeEnc's legal troubles have to do with Fraunhofer and Thomson (the holders of key MP3 patents) and are patent related. They appear to have been resolved (for the moment) by no longer posting binaries of BladeEnc, though work is continuing to get the binaries back. Tord Jansson (the lead developer and maintainer for BladeEnc) hasn't mentioned anything about the music industry, though he has a nice page about the DVD case on the main BladeEnc site (http://bladeenc.mp3.no). - Ravi Nanavati From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 02:45:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA19860 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:45:07 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA19857 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:45:06 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW200G2CYSIRD@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:18:45 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] JOHN J. HOY deposition To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW200G2DYSIRD@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 CAA19858 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In Hoy's declaration he states: "4. Paragraph 8 of the Pavlovich Declaration contains several misstatements about the terms of the CSS Agreement: (a) First, Mr. Pavlovich states that "a potential licensee must post a security of between $750,000 and $one million, which would be forfeited if the licensee ever breached the license." (Pavlovich Decl., ¶ 8). This is untrue. The CSS Agreement does not, and has never, contained any provision requiring a licensee to post any security deposit in order to become a CSS licensee." Fine, then what *is* the penalty for breaching the license agreement? This denial means nothing if the essential contents of the CSS license agreement are not made public. "(b) Second, Mr. Pavlovich states that "the DVD CCA, which I understand is a non-profit industry association, also apparently requires a 6% royalty on all sales." (Id.) Again, this is untrue. The CSS Agreement does not, and has never, contained any provision requiring any licensee to pay a royalty on sales of products utilizing CSS." Again, this denial is meaningless unless we know the essential contents of the CSS license agreement. (However, my discussions with a CSS licensee concurrs with Hoy's statement of fact here. As far as I know, royalties were not part of the equation for at least that one CSS licensee. It is possible that Mr. Pavlovich's company was shown a different agreement.) "(c) Third, Mr. Pavlovich states that he was "informed by an individual that his company's request for a CSS license was rejected because the company was 'unknown.' " (Id.) I know of no applicant for a CSS license which was rejected on the grounds that it was "unknown."" Then why was his company rejected? Again, this denial is not meaningful if we don't know the full extent of what caused them to be rejected as a CSS licensee candidate. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 03:09:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA20134 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:09:54 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA20131 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:09:53 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA21621 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:11:33 -0500 Message-ID: <3945DDD7.E4DB036E@mninter.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:08:07 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time References: <39449DA1.B718DB80@mninter.net> <20000612020040.C722@zork.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 > Chris Moseng writes: > > Ask any student of semiotics or the philosophy of language, but > > DeCSS, in source or object form, has become speech as a result of > > the trial. The code now stands for "freedom of speech," or "the > >DMCA is unconstitutional," or "keep the MPAA out of my computer." Seth David Schoen wrote: > So you want the Court to say that DeCSS is legal because people can >use it to violate the law? > > Defying unjust laws is illegal. Well, I'll admit my argument was not the most effective one. My point is that it can be reasonably argued that the file itself in object and source form, and operational links to the file, have meaning in a communicative sense. What meaning the defense argues that the files have is up for debate. Futhermore, I would say that while defying law is illegal, merely communicating the idea of a broken or defied law is not. Just as I can say "rob a bank" or "I can rob a bank" or even "I robbed a bank" and not necessarily break any laws that pertain to bank robbing, I can present DeCSS or a link to DeCSS and not necessarily break any copyright laws. Presenting DeCSS is similar, in a way, to putting the meaning of the program in quotes, like the above examples. Just as a fact like I Robbed A Bank is different from saying the words 'I robbed a bank,' so is the function of DeCSS separate from the posting of DeCSS on a web page as political commentary. The former is DeCSS, the latter is 'DeCSS'. In a way, DeCSS the object or source code is a hyperlink or reference to a concept, the concept of fair access. This position may be weaker with the current state of DeCSS, but as I mentioned before, DeCSS can be made to comply with the trafficking elements of 1201 by arguing significant non-circumvention features or by simply adding them. I suppose, though, that the issue of harm to the plaintiff is still unaddressed even if the object code is ruled speech. Besides, I'm going way off into the deep end anyway. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 03:19:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA20275 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:19:52 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA20272 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:19:51 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW300I7S0F90P@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:54:01 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: [dvd-discuss] Xing player keys revoked. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW300I7T0F90P@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 know this came up as a thread recently. While looking for something, I noticed that this story was quoted: http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/movies/movie079.htm So apparently the fact that the Xing player keys have been revoked has been known for some time. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 03:40:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA20433 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:40:29 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA20430 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:40:27 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131lL0-0004M5-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:42:18 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:42:18 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time Message-ID: <20000613004218.X722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <39449DA1.B718DB80@mninter.net> <20000612020040.C722@zork.net> <3945DDD7.E4DB036E@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3945DDD7.E4DB036E@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 02:08:07AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chris Moseng writes: > Futhermore, I would say that while defying law is illegal, merely > communicating the idea of a broken or defied law is not. Just as I can > say "rob a bank" or "I can rob a bank" or even "I robbed a bank" and not > necessarily break any laws that pertain to bank robbing, I can present > DeCSS or a link to DeCSS and not necessarily break any copyright laws. This argument makes sense to me. How would you convince a judge that DeCSS is not an illegal device? Ever since they realize it's been an issue, the plaintiffs have been sure to call DeCSS a "device", all the time. -- 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 Jun 13 03:46:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA20569 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:46:17 -0400 Received: from MIT.EDU (SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.72.1.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA20566 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:46:17 -0400 Received: from GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA20809; Tue, 13 Jun 00 03:47:55 EDT Received: from melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.45]) by grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id DAA12957 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oobleck.mit.edu (OOBLECK.MIT.EDU [18.54.0.122]) by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id DAA04911 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethf@localhost) by oobleck.mit.edu (8.9.3) id DAA03123; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006130748.DAA03123@oobleck.mit.edu> From: Seth Finkelstein To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time In-Reply-To: <3945DDD7.E4DB036E@mninter.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Chris Moseng > Presenting DeCSS is similar, in a way, to putting the meaning of the > program in quotes, like the above examples. Y'know, this whole discussion reminds me of the joke: "No one is ever without redeeming qualities. If nothing else, they serve as a good ``bad example''" The problem with your point is that the quoting argument can fail. For example, if a certain reprinting of a poem is ruled to fail the fair-use test for copyright infringement, then it's quite possible for a quoting in the sense you use it above to also be copyright infringement, ie. "According to the ruling, it was held to be copyright infringement to reprint: ". That also may be copyright infringement. > Just as a fact like I Robbed A Bank is different from saying the > words 'I robbed a bank,' I think the relevant analogy is that if you rob a bank in order to fund your revolutionary group (i.e., for political reasons) and then get caught, you are not a "political prisoner". > so is the function of DeCSS separate from the posting of DeCSS on a > web page as political commentary. Well, yes, the problem is that does the latter get you off the hook for the former? People have lost copyright infringement cases even when claiming political purposes. Note I don't mean to fall into the trap of saying these are copyright infringement issues. I'm just using that as an example to point out the flaws of the "quoting" argument. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Web Programmer sethf@mit.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 04:21:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA20879 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:21:06 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA20876 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:21:04 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 131lyI-0003Sr-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:22:54 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 131lyK-0006Kt-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:22:56 +0200 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:22:56 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000613102256.A24244@inka.de> References: <000101bfd471$08f489e0$d57945ce@bugbug> <3945249F.C0BE9417@mninter.net> <20000612165154.R24570@linuxpower.org> <20000612152849.B2214@localhost> <20000612175342.W24570@linuxpower.org> <39457D3F.CD13C46C@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <39457D3F.CD13C46C@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 06:16:00PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 06:16:00PM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > Players or discs? If discs, yes, of course, there are discs that do not use > CSS or region codes. Players, no. Do you know of any examples of DVDs that don't use CSS? I haven't heard of any (movies, not DVD ROMS) Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 04:31:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA21035 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:31:59 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA21032 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:31:58 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW3000WI3RWLS@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:33:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:06:26 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: [dvd-discuss] Disturbing news. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW3000WJ3RWLS@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 It turns out that the DeCSS.EXE utility is itself very very closed source. While the css-auth code is abundance on the web, the source for DeCSS.EXE is nowhere to be found. Worse yet, the DeCSS.EXE binary has been extremely well protected by something called "PESHiELD" (so that I could not reverse engineer some source out of it.) This is a bit disturbing as it will make it much harder for us to quantify exactly *what* DeCSS.EXE is. This is all public knowledge as it became noticed by the WINE group (Windows emulation under Linux) and briefly discussed. I verified it myself with a bit of investigation. Anyone have suggestions? Is this relevant? -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 04:34:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA21148 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:34:35 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA21145 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:34:33 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 131mBN-0003pp-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:36:25 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 131mBP-0006Pe-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:36:27 +0200 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:36:27 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Disturbing news. Message-ID: <20000613103627.B24244@inka.de> References: <0FW3000WJ3RWLS@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <0FW3000WJ3RWLS@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>; from qed@pobox.com on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 02:06:26AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 02:06:26AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > It turns out that the DeCSS.EXE utility is itself very very closed source. While the > css-auth code is abundance on the web, the source for DeCSS.EXE is nowhere > to be found. It's in the LiViD CVS tree. The source there does, however, seem to be a slightly different version than the widely distributed binary. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 04:43:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA21225 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:43:37 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA21221 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:43:29 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 131mJz-00044T-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:45:19 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 131mK1-0006T0-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:45:21 +0200 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:45:21 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time Message-ID: <20000613104521.C24244@inka.de> References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DA9@c100.clearway.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DA9@c100.clearway.com>; from Ray@clearway.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 11:21:32PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 11:21:32PM -0400, Leland Ray wrote: > > What if you want to pirate a DVD, but just change region codes? > Do you need to decrypt then? No, the region codes are not encrypted. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 05:33:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA22106 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:33:16 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA22103 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:33:15 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW300HS36LZFY@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:07:36 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use In-reply-to: <20000613102256.A24244@inka.de> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW300HS46M0FY@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <39457D3F.CD13C46C@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 06:16:00PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 06:16:00PM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > > Players or discs? If discs, yes, of course, there are discs that do not use > > CSS or region codes. Players, no. > > Do you know of any examples of DVDs that don't use CSS? I haven't heard of > any (movies, not DVD ROMS) When developing DVD players, the DVD licencee is usally given such unencrypted DVDs. I don't remember whether or not these DVDs were obtainable by the general public. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 06:01:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA22368 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:01:14 -0400 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 GAA22365 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:01:12 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 131nXC-0007Mz-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:03:02 +0200 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:03:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time In-Reply-To: <20000612130935.F722@zork.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 Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > there is no known technique to decrypt a VOB in isolation, without > access to the actual DVD it came from. And DeCSS certainly doesn't do > this -- you can't just give it a VOB on a hard drive and get out > another VOB. > This could very easily change, if need arose. Each DVD block is unencrypted for the first 128 bytes. So I suspect that with some investigation you could identify some place among the millions ov blocks on the disk where MPEG padding crosses the unecrypted / encrypted boundary. This will give enough known plaintext to recover the title key in 2^16 operations. 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 Jun 13 06:06:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA22521 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:06:34 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA22518 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:06:33 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131ncP-0004a9-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:08:25 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:08:25 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time Message-ID: <20000613030825.Z722@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000612130935.F722@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from frank@funcom.com on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 12:03:02PM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Frank Andrew Stevenson writes: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > there is no known technique to decrypt a VOB in isolation, without > > access to the actual DVD it came from. And DeCSS certainly doesn't do > > this -- you can't just give it a VOB on a hard drive and get out > > another VOB. > > > > This could very easily change, if need arose. Each DVD block is > unencrypted for the first 128 bytes. So I suspect that with some > investigation you could identify some place among the millions ov blocks > on the disk where MPEG padding crosses the unecrypted / encrypted > boundary. This will give enough known plaintext to recover the title key > in 2^16 operations. Hmmm, maybe somebody should write a "VOBDeCSS", to decrypt a VOB in isolation. Then everybody can just go home. :-) -- 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 Jun 13 08:57:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA23434 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:57:14 -0400 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 IAA23431 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:57:12 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-41.suba.com [206.69.121.233]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA01138 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:59:02 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:58:31 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bfd537$1326f120$e97945ce@bugbug> 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: <0FW2004PYVN9CJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.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 Paul wrote: > > If I am correct she is referring to the fact the Schumann points > out the possible > usage of the DivX compression codec (which, as I understand it, > is a mysteriously > recently leaked technology from Microsoft ... does anyone have > more info on this > codec?) If she wants to take exception that's her right. But if > we are intent on > responding, we need to clarify this to make sure that it is > understood that she is > objecting to the use of DivX as a means of retransmitting a > movie. (Then, of > course, we have to nail this DVD -> DivX -> retransmission > argument to the wall.) Paul or other interested, can you come up with a statement as to why the DivX is another red herring? I need to add it to the response to RS, and we do need to address this point. NOTA BENE, it doesn't need to say it will never be useful for this purpose, just that it is not very useful now (if such is in fact the case). > > > If so, then what was the basis for the claim that Gronich's declaration > > is getting the technical facts wrong? > > Dunno. But here's my take on what she said: > > "4. The sole and admitted function of DeCSS is to decrypt CSS (in > this case. > motion picture films released on CSS-encrypted DVD discs). DeCSS is a key > element in the new wave of socalled file-sharing technologies > that make it > possible for millions of computer users to decrypt, compress, > transmit and > reproduce unauthorized copies of motion picture films over the Internet." > > This is not technically correct. For a scheme which involves the > recompression of > the DVD stream to a lower quality format, it is unnecessary to > involve DeCSS. > Since the quality is degraded, it only is required that the input > quality is > sufficiently higher than the target quality. In this case use of > a video capture card > is a wholly sufficient replacement for DeCSS. (Note that a video > capture card has > no bearing or relationship to CSS or DeCSS whatsoever.) She is not saying that DeCSS is a compressor. She is saying that decryption is a necessary step in a series of steps using all of these technologies; that series of steps yields piracy. Plaintiffs position is that these other technologies facilitate easy distribution of large files over the internet; with a decryptor, DVD files are rendered playable by any MPEG-2 player. So the decryptor is a necessary step in the process. > > "5. I am aware of the impact that Napster and like systems have > had on the audio > recording industry [...] Given the exponential growth of these > so-called file-sharing > technologies among computer users in the mainstream, there is a > real likelihood > that the injury caused by vast numbers of people trading > unauthorized copies of > films and other entertainment products over the Internet will dwarf more > "traditional," commercial piracy operations." > > This may or may not be true, but DeCSS is not Napster. > > It should be pointed out that nobody in the recording industry is > going after > MusicMatch, which is a very popular and powerful CD audio -> MP3 > converter. The difference is that there's no TPM - no encryption - on the music files. They can't go after MM because it solely a matter of media shifting, not of unauthorized access. sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 09:11:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA23665 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:11:28 -0400 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 JAA23662 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:11:27 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (jdsl248.dnvr.uswest.net [206.196.156.248]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA14708 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39463234.86CB3AF7@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:08:04 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use References: <39457D3F.CD13C46C@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 06:16:00PM -0600 <0FW300HS46M0FY@mta6.snfc21.pbi.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 > > Do you know of any examples of DVDs that don't use CSS? I haven't heard of > > any (movies, not DVD ROMS) > > Earthlight and Mars, the Red Planet do not use CSS. They aren't exactly "movies" but they do consist of video, subtitles, audio tracks, and menus. There are also corporate training and marketing titles that do not use CSS. BTW, ALLs DVDs are technically DVD ROMs. DVD Video is an application layer designed specifically for video content (doesn't have to be a movie, obviously). Even a DVD Video disc is allowed to include non video material (games, screen savers, text, etc.). The distinction between DVD ROM and DVD Video is for all intents and purposes imaginary. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 09:47:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24208 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:47:16 -0400 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA24205 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:47:15 -0400 Message-ID: <20000613134837.23240.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:48:37 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Disturbing news. 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: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 02:06:26AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > It turns out that the DeCSS.EXE utility is itself very very closed > > source. While the css-auth code is abundance on the web, the > > source for DeCSS.EXE is nowhere to be found. > > It's in the LiViD CVS tree. The source there does, however, seem to > be a slightly different version than the widely distributed binary. According to the declaration of Bruce Boyden item 4, 41 of the sites listed on 2600's mirror site are posting the DeCSS source code. Of these 34 post it with the object code and 7 post it alone. http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm#Boyden __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 10:29:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24625 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:29:46 -0400 Received: from dial151.roadrunner.com (dial151.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.151] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24621 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:29:43 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial151.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA00640 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:31:51 -0600 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:31:50 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Disturbing news. Message-ID: <20000613083150.A549@localhost> References: <20000613134837.23240.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000613134837.23240.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:48:37AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:48:37AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Sham Gardner wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 02:06:26AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > > It turns out that the DeCSS.EXE utility is itself very very closed > > > source. While the css-auth code is abundance on the web, the > > > source for DeCSS.EXE is nowhere to be found. > > > > It's in the LiViD CVS tree. The source there does, however, seem to > > be a slightly different version than the widely distributed binary. > > According to the declaration of Bruce Boyden item 4, 41 of the sites > listed on 2600's mirror site are posting the DeCSS source code. Of > these 34 post it with the object code and 7 post it alone. > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm#Boyden I though that with Prokauser-Rose you can never tell whether they mean the DeCSS program, or if they are using DeCSS to mean "any program which descrambles and was not licensed by the DVD-CCA". Q: What are we being sued for "trafficking" in? A: Anything we don't like! Q: Which things that you don't like? A: It doesn't matter. Any of them. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 10:35:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24814 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:35:28 -0400 Received: from dial151.roadrunner.com (dial151.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.151] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24811 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:35:25 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial151.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA00659 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:37:34 -0600 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:37:34 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000613083734.B549@localhost> References: <0FW2004PYVN9CJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <000101bfd537$1326f120$e97945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <000101bfd537$1326f120$e97945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 07:58:31AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I (Paul) didn't write the following: On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 07:58:31AM -0500, sparky wrote: > Paul did not write: > > > > If I am correct she is referring to the fact the Schumann points > > out the possible > > usage of the DivX compression codec (which, as I understand it, > > is a mysteriously > > recently leaked technology from Microsoft ... does anyone have > > more info on this > > codec?) If she wants to take exception that's her right. But if > > we are intent on > > responding, we need to clarify this to make sure that it is > > understood that she is > > objecting to the use of DivX as a means of retransmitting a > > movie. (Then, of > > course, we have to nail this DVD -> DivX -> retransmission > > argument to the wall.) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 10:35:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24822 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:35:32 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt040n98.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.12.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA24819 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:35:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 13922 invoked by uid 502); 13 Jun 2000 14:45:02 -0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:45:02 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Disturbing news. Message-ID: <20000613104502.E13481@linuxpower.org> References: <20000613134837.23240.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> <20000613083150.A549@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000613083150.A549@localhost>; from Paul Fenimore on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 08:31:50AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 08:31:50AM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:48:37AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > --- Sham Gardner wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 02:06:26AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > > > It turns out that the DeCSS.EXE utility is itself very very closed > > > > source. While the css-auth code is abundance on the web, the > > > > source for DeCSS.EXE is nowhere to be found. > > > > > > It's in the LiViD CVS tree. The source there does, however, seem to > > > be a slightly different version than the widely distributed binary. > > > > According to the declaration of Bruce Boyden item 4, 41 of the sites > > listed on 2600's mirror site are posting the DeCSS source code. Of > > these 34 post it with the object code and 7 post it alone. > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm#Boyden > > I though that with Prokauser-Rose you can never tell whether they mean the > DeCSS program, or if they are using DeCSS to mean "any program which > descrambles and was not licensed by the DVD-CCA". > > Q: What are we being sued for "trafficking" in? > A: Anything we don't like! Q: And when are we going? A: SOON! Sorry. :) Rob Warren who always wanted to be a Hong Kong Cavalier (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 10:51:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25008 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:51:07 -0400 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 KAA25005 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:51:06 -0400 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 HAA26705 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:50:40 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA09784; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:49:42 -0700 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] JOHN J. HOY deposition Date: 13 Jun 2000 07:48:33 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 29 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8i5hk1$9hn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <0FW200G2DYSIRD@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <0FW200G2DYSIRD@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>, Paul Hsieh wrote: > (a) First, Mr. Pavlovich states that "a potential licensee must post a > security of between $750,000 and $one million, which would be forfeited > if the licensee ever breached the license." (Pavlovich Decl., ¶ 8). > This is untrue. The CSS Agreement does not, and has never, contained > any provision requiring a licensee to post any security deposit in order > to become a CSS licensee." According to the license disclosed in the California DVD CCA trial, all I can see is a requirement for licensees to pay an "administrative fee" of one million yen (annually, I think), and at today's exchange rates, that's about $10,000 in US dollars. > "(c) Third, Mr. Pavlovich states that he was "informed by an individual > that his company's request for a CSS license was rejected because the > company was 'unknown.' " (Id.) I know of no applicant for a CSS license > which was rejected on the grounds that it was "unknown."" > > Then why was his company rejected? I can't blaim Hoy for not volunteering why the company was rejected, when no information is available on, e.g., the name of the company. Can you? It seems that claims like this ("the license was rejected because the company was 'unknown'", without giving the name of the company or any further supporting evidence) must be better supported if they are going to stick; otherwise, they will be (rightly) questioned. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 11:34:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA25383 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:34:18 -0400 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 LAA25380 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:34:17 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA20215 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:36:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:36:08 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Disturbing news. Message-ID: <20000613103608.B20129@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000613134837.23240.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <20000613134837.23240.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:48:37AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:48:37AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Sham Gardner wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 02:06:26AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > > It turns out that the DeCSS.EXE utility is itself very very closed > > > source. While the css-auth code is abundance on the web, the > > > source for DeCSS.EXE is nowhere to be found. > > > > It's in the LiViD CVS tree. The source there does, however, seem to > > be a slightly different version than the widely distributed binary. > > According to the declaration of Bruce Boyden item 4, 41 of the sites > listed on 2600's mirror site are posting the DeCSS source code. Of > these 34 post it with the object code and 7 post it alone. > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm#Boyden I have seen the source code. Going back through my old emails, this is the first mirror I stumbled across that has it: http://ArtUN.ee/~rommi/css/DeCSS/ Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 11:53:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA25783 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:53:40 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA25780 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:53:39 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10488 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:55:32 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39464C74.9576D94@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:00:04 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use 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 > Do you know of any examples of DVDs that don't use CSS? I haven't heard of > any (movies, not DVD ROMS) Don't know, but there are DVDs of indisputably public domain material. I have a video DVD containing all of the Clinton grand jury testimony on a single disc. I don't know if it is CSS encrypted, and don't have the hardware to find out. If it were CSS encrypted, then a program like DeCSS would be required to extract and utilize the public domain content. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 12:15:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA26228 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:15:23 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26225 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:15:19 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 131tNG-0000l2-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:17:10 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 131tNH-00019s-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:17:11 +0200 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:17:11 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Disturbing news. Message-ID: <20000613181710.A4215@inka.de> References: <20000613134837.23240.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> <20000613103608.B20129@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000613103608.B20129@thud.reric.net>; from eds@reric.net on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 10:36:08AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 10:36:08AM -0500, Eric Seppanen wrote: > I have seen the source code. Going back through my old emails, this is > the first mirror I stumbled across that has it: > > http://ArtUN.ee/~rommi/css/DeCSS/ This seems to be the same source that's in the LiViD tree. I haven't been able to get it to work under Windows 95/98. Unlike the binary, it seems to be NT only, am I missing something? Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand." (Ambassdor G'Kar, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 12:47:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA26477 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:47:14 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26474 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:47:12 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW300EQVQHJWQ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:16:52 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Disturbing news. In-reply-to: <20000613134837.23240.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW300EQWQHJWQ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 02:06:26AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > > It turns out that the DeCSS.EXE utility is itself very very closed > > > source. While the css-auth code is abundance on the web, the > > > source for DeCSS.EXE is nowhere to be found. > > > > It's in the LiViD CVS tree. The source there does, however, seem to > > be a slightly different version than the widely distributed binary. > > According to the declaration of Bruce Boyden item 4, 41 of the sites > listed on 2600's mirror site are posting the DeCSS source code. Of > these 34 post it with the object code and 7 post it alone. > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm#Boyden Exactly. It is in reading this that I started my investigation of the DeCSS source. It turns out that there are 9 sites that have decss.tar.gz files, however none of these is actually source to DeCSS, but rather they are all sources to the "red herring" decss tool that removes cascading style sheet info from an .HTML file. I believe there are way more than 34 sites offering css-auth.tar.gz, but I did not actually check that claim. I believe it is necessary to get the real source to DeCSS in order to speak about it totally intellegently. So the livid source tree sounds useful, but I am also pursuing other avenues to get the *real* source. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 13:06:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27883 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:06:59 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27880 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:06:58 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW30019HR07B3@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:28:11 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] JOHN J. HOY deposition In-reply-to: <8i5hk1$9hn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW30019JR07B3@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 NAA27881 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu David Wagner wrote: > Paul Hsieh wrote: > > (a) First, Mr. Pavlovich states that "a potential licensee must post a > > security of between $750,000 and $one million, which would be forfeited > > if the licensee ever breached the license." (Pavlovich Decl., ¶ 8). > > This is untrue. The CSS Agreement does not, and has never, contained > > any provision requiring a licensee to post any security deposit in order > > to become a CSS licensee." > > According to the license disclosed in the California DVD CCA trial, > all I can see is a requirement for licensees to pay an "administrative > fee" of one million yen (annually, I think), and at today's exchange > rates, that's about $10,000 in US dollars. Hmmm ... ok, not a big deal, except that its still not within the typical arrangements made for open source projects. I.e., the $10K/yr fee may stil lbe considered an unsurmountable hurdle for some developers. > > "(c) Third, Mr. Pavlovich states that he was "informed by an individual > > that his company's request for a CSS license was rejected because the > > company was 'unknown.' " (Id.) I know of no applicant for a CSS license > > which was rejected on the grounds that it was "unknown."" > > > > Then why was his company rejected? > > I can't blaim Hoy for not volunteering why the company was rejected, > when no information is available on, e.g., the name of the company. > Can you? > > It seems that claims like this ("the license was rejected because the > company was 'unknown'", without giving the name of the company or any > further supporting evidence) must be better supported if they are going > to stick; otherwise, they will be (rightly) questioned. When you are right you are right. My goal of course, is to find some lever to get them to be forced to discuss what they don't want to discuss. Incentivising them to consider dropping the case on the basis that it will reveal their business practices (under the assumption that that would be worse) is something I thought might we worth while. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 13:20:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28049 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:20:27 -0400 Received: from dial74.roadrunner.com (sf-du74.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28046 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:20:24 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by dial74.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA05128 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:22:32 -0600 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:22:31 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Disturbing news. Message-ID: <20000613112231.A5087@orange.fenimore.org> References: <20000613134837.23240.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> <0FW300EQWQHJWQ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <0FW300EQWQHJWQ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net>; from qed@pobox.com on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 10:16:52AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 10:16:52AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > --- Sham Gardner wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 02:06:26AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: > > > > It turns out that the DeCSS.EXE utility is itself very very closed > > > > source. While the css-auth code is abundance on the web, the > > > > source for DeCSS.EXE is nowhere to be found. > > > > > > It's in the LiViD CVS tree. The source there does, however, seem to > > > be a slightly different version than the widely distributed binary. > > > > According to the declaration of Bruce Boyden item 4, 41 of the sites > > listed on 2600's mirror site are posting the DeCSS source code. Of > > these 34 post it with the object code and 7 post it alone. > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rso.htm#Boyden > > Exactly. It is in reading this that I started my investigation of the DeCSS source. > It turns out that there are 9 sites that have decss.tar.gz files, however none of > these is actually source to DeCSS, but rather they are all sources to the "red > herring" decss tool that removes cascading style sheet info from an .HTML file. I > believe there are way more than 34 sites offering css-auth.tar.gz, but I did not > actually check that claim. > > I believe it is necessary to get the real source to DeCSS in order to speak about it > totally intellegently. So the livid source tree sounds useful, but I am also pursuing > other avenues to get the *real* source. This is potentially very important. If the plaintiffs can't specify what they are suing about, then that is a very important point which needs to raised with the court. Q: What is the basis for this suit? A: You're posting programs that descramble. That violates (a)(2). Q: Which programs? A: Things that descramble CSS. Q: No. You need to specify which program are at issue, otherwise my client will have no way of complying with any court order should you prevail in this suit. What is the name of the program? A: DeCSS. Q: So there is just one program you object to? or more? A: All the ones that descramble CSS. Q: Which are? A: DeCSS. Q: No. You don't understand. That name is already taken for a _particular_ program. You can't simply describe the programs, you have to specify them. A: What are you talking about? I provided a list of links which provide the offending program. Q: They point to a bunch of things, which are not all the same. A: But they all have the same name! They have the same function. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 13:44:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28300 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:44:12 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28297 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:44:10 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09150 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:45:52 -0500 Message-ID: <3946723F.FB304C79@mninter.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:41:19 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Disturbing news. References: <0FW3000WJ3RWLS@mta5.snfc21.pbi.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 According to the EFF (http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/), the MPAA expanded their definition of DeCSS to include all past and future programs that can breack CSS. They reportedly did this in their motion to expand the injunction. In this case, the exact nature of the widely-distributed DeCSS.exe, or even what is linked at 2600 doesn't make any difference. In my opinion, this helps the defense, because according to my reading of the anti-trafficking elements of 1201, the program can be legally trafficked if it has non-circumvention uses. Thus, if the defense fails to convince the judge that the original DeCSS has non-infringing uses, there may be some versions or some flavors of a CSS-breaking program under the expanded definition that they could. This matter of non-circumvention uses, as I see it, could be a core element of the defense. I would like to know if anyone sees complications with such a defense. Basically, I see that the trafficking elements of 1201 give more leeway to the nature of the device trafficked than the actual anti-circumvention element; such that trafficking in an illegal-to-use device may be legal. Does that about sum it up, or have I misread? Chris Paul Hsieh wrote: > > It turns out that the DeCSS.EXE utility is itself very very closed >source. While the > css-auth code is abundance on the web, the source for DeCSS.EXE is >nowhere > to be found. Worse yet, the DeCSS.EXE binary has been extremely well > protected by something called "PESHiELD" (so that I could not reverse >engineer > some source out of it.) This is a bit disturbing as it will make it >much harder for > us to quantify exactly *what* DeCSS.EXE is. > > This is all public knowledge as it became noticed by the WINE group >(Windows > emulation under Linux) and briefly discussed. I verified it myself >with a bit of > investigation. > > Anyone have suggestions? Is this relevant? > -- > Paul Hsieh > qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 14:10:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28657 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:10:28 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28654 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:10:25 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id OAA31818 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:14:25 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:07:57 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:07:19 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] JOHN J. HOY deposition Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id OAA28655 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wait a second - how many license applications were rejected? Recalling the rejection of an application would seem to be easier than remembering the details of one of dozens or hundreds of accepted license applications. >>> Paul Hsieh 06/13/00 01:28PM >>> David Wagner wrote: > Paul Hsieh wrote: > > (a) First, Mr. Pavlovich states that "a potential licensee must post a > > security of between $750,000 and $one million, which would be forfeited > > if the licensee ever breached the license." (Pavlovich Decl., ¶ 8). > > This is untrue. The CSS Agreement does not, and has never, contained > > any provision requiring a licensee to post any security deposit in order > > to become a CSS licensee." > > According to the license disclosed in the California DVD CCA trial, > all I can see is a requirement for licensees to pay an "administrative > fee" of one million yen (annually, I think), and at today's exchange > rates, that's about $10,000 in US dollars. Hmmm ... ok, not a big deal, except that its still not within the typical arrangements made for open source projects. I.e., the $10K/yr fee may stil lbe considered an unsurmountable hurdle for some developers. > > "(c) Third, Mr. Pavlovich states that he was "informed by an individual > > that his company's request for a CSS license was rejected because the > > company was 'unknown.' " (Id.) I know of no applicant for a CSS license > > which was rejected on the grounds that it was "unknown."" > > > > Then why was his company rejected? > > I can't blaim Hoy for not volunteering why the company was rejected, > when no information is available on, e.g., the name of the company. > Can you? > > It seems that claims like this ("the license was rejected because the > company was 'unknown'", without giving the name of the company or any > further supporting evidence) must be better supported if they are going > to stick; otherwise, they will be (rightly) questioned. When you are right you are right. My goal of course, is to find some lever to get them to be forced to discuss what they don't want to discuss. Incentivising them to consider dropping the case on the basis that it will reveal their business practices (under the assumption that that would be worse) is something I thought might we worth while. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 14:41:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29042 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:41:47 -0400 Received: from cyclesoftware.com (www.cyclesoftware.com [209.46.107.178]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA29039 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:41:45 -0400 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000490656 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:43:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8i4ct6$8eo$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <8i3bqi$5jc$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <0FW2005SWQER6P@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> <8i4ct6$8eo$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:42:59 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 >In article <0FW2005SWQER6P@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>, >Paul Hsieh wrote: >> > You forgot about lossy compression! >> >> I ddin't forget about it, I just deferred it, >> as it is falls under a different category of >> discussion. > >Then we agree that Gronich's statement is technically correct? >If so, then what was the basis for the claim that Gronich's declaration >is getting the technical facts wrong? I thought the point of DeCSS was that it allowed access to "optimally" compressed digital video. If one were to apply a significantly more lossy algorithm that does not take advantage of remaining in the digital domain (ie some kind of transcoder), then what is the difference between the result and what one might obtain by customary means and a lossy compressor? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 14:46:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29460 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:46:11 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA29457 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:46:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20000613184732.29413.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:47:32 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:47:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Games with the definition of DeCSS 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 plaintiffs are of playing games with the definition of "DeCSS". When 1201(f) is discussed in Plaintiffs briefs and affidavits, the windows program DeCSS.exe is spoken of narrowly as a windows executable. However, as noted below, the preliminary injunction was sought and granted for *all* CSS descramblers. The MPAA got away with a big double standard here. Thus css-auth, which runs under linux, BSD, and many others, has *already* been denied the reverse engineering exception status because a different program DeCSS.exe exists on windows. I would recommend to the defense to file a motion to modify the original injunction to redefine DeCSS to mean DeCSS.exe, on the grounds that the statue requires different tools to be treated individually, since the functionality relevent to the exceptions (such as interoperability) as well as purpose for distribution may be different for different tools. --- Chris Moseng wrote: > According to the EFF (http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/), > the MPAA expanded their definition of DeCSS to include all past and > future programs that can breack CSS. They reportedly did this in their > motion to expand the injunction. The motion to expand includes the following point 1. d) revise paragraph 3(c) to read " 'DeCSS' means any computer program, file or device that may be used to decrypt or unscramble the contents of DVDs that are protected, or otherwise to circumvent the protection afforded, by CSS and that permits the unauthorized access or copying of the contents or any portion thereof," This is easy to misread unless you compare the original: 3(c) “DeCSS” means any computer program, file or device that may be used to decrypt or unscramble the contents of DVDs that are protected, or otherwise to circumvent the protection afforded, by CSS and that permits the copying of the contents or any portion thereof. Thus the only change is adding the words 'unauthorized access'. The broad definition actually is part of the original injunction. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 14:48:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29561 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:48:48 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29558 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:48:47 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:54:04 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DAE@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:54:03 -0400 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 Sure, you can compress and lose quality. The plaintiffs are saying that DeCSS represents a threat because digital copying allows for perfect copies to be distributed. However, a lossy compressed mp2 is by definition lower quality, and this cannot be considered a perfect copy. If the plaintiffs are going to say that DeCSS allows for distribution of perfect copies, then the example of piracy they use cannot be a degraded copy -- that is apples and oranges. This is, IMHO, one of the reasons why Garbus continuously asks about quality in the Schumann deposition. Digital tape, and CDs do degrade as multiple generations are made. With tape, this is an inherent limitation of a flexible media, with a CD, it has to do with error correction, and the way burners are calibrated. Data formats also can cause degradation. The .mp2 format is probably not the highest quality picture, it is probably just "good enough" for most equipment people have in their homes. It is already a lossy format. -----Original Message----- From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu [mailto:daw@cs.berkeley.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 12:27 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Nonsense. You, too, seem to have forgotten about lossy compression. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 14:58:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29754 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:58:16 -0400 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 OAA29751 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:58:14 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA15579 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:00:06 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:00:05 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Games with the definition of DeCSS In-Reply-To: <20000613184732.29413.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 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 OAA29752 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > The plaintiffs are of playing games with the definition of "DeCSS". > > When 1201(f) is discussed in Plaintiffs briefs and affidavits, the > windows program DeCSS.exe is spoken of narrowly as a windows > executable. > > However, as noted below, the preliminary injunction was sought and > granted for *all* CSS descramblers. The MPAA got away with a big double > standard here. > > Thus css-auth, which runs under linux, BSD, and many others, has > *already* been denied the reverse engineering exception status because > a different program DeCSS.exe exists on windows. > > I would recommend to the defense to file a motion to modify the > original injunction to redefine DeCSS to mean DeCSS.exe, on the grounds > that the statue requires different tools to be treated individually, > since the functionality relevent to the exceptions (such as > interoperability) as well as purpose for distribution may be different > for different tools. I support this recommendation wholeheartedly. Regardless of whether it is a "motion" or not, we should put something like this together and employ it in whatever way would be helpful. It does not have to be long; the whole point is very straightforward. sparky > > --- Chris Moseng wrote: > > According to the EFF (http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/), > > the MPAA expanded their definition of DeCSS to include all past and > > future programs that can breack CSS. They reportedly did this in > their > > motion to expand the injunction. > > The motion to expand includes the following point > > > 1. d) revise paragraph 3(c) to read " 'DeCSS' means any computer > program, file or device that may be used to decrypt or unscramble the > contents of DVDs that are protected, or otherwise to circumvent the > protection afforded, by CSS and that permits the unauthorized access or > copying of the contents or any portion thereof," > > > This is easy to misread unless you compare the original: > > > 3(c) “DeCSS” means any computer program, file or device that may be > used to decrypt or unscramble the contents of DVDs that are protected, > or otherwise to circumvent the protection afforded, by CSS and that > permits the copying of the contents or any portion thereof. > > > Thus the only change is adding the words 'unauthorized access'. The > broad definition actually is part of the original injunction. > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > http://photos.yahoo.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 15:21:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30133 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:21:13 -0400 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 PAA30110 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:19:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA16420 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:20:34 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:20:33 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DAE@c100.clearway.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, 13 Jun 2000, Leland Ray wrote: > > Sure, you can compress and lose quality. > > The plaintiffs are saying that DeCSS represents a threat because > digital copying allows for perfect copies to be distributed. > However, a lossy compressed mp2 is by definition lower quality, > and this cannot be considered a perfect copy. > > If the plaintiffs are going to say that DeCSS allows for distribution of > perfect copies, then the example of piracy they use cannot be a > degraded copy -- that is apples and oranges. > > This is, IMHO, one of the reasons why Garbus continuously > asks about quality in the Schumann deposition. > > Digital tape, and CDs do degrade as multiple generations are made. With > tape, this is an inherent limitation of a flexible media, with a CD, > it has to do with error correction, and the way burners are calibrated. > > Data formats also can cause degradation. The .mp2 format is probably > not the highest quality picture, it is probably just "good enough" > for most equipment people have in their homes. It is already a lossy format. > So the thrust of our counterargument to Schumann is: you can have high-quality, large copies which are difficult to distribute, or you can have small, easy-to-distribute, but low-quality copies, but with current tech you cannot have both. The compression required to make a DVD file anywhere *near* as easy to distribute over the internet as Schumann says it is, quality of the movie would be nowhere near perfect. Motivation to piracy lessens significantly when the distributed product does not match or nearly match the original in both of these qualities. fleshing-out? sparky > -----Original Message----- > From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu [mailto:daw@cs.berkeley.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 12:27 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl > > Nonsense. You, too, seem to have forgotten about lossy compression. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 15:29:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30329 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:29:14 -0400 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA30326 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:29:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20000613193035.6930.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:30:35 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:30:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] JOHN J. HOY deposition 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 Hsieh wrote: > > According to the license disclosed in the California DVD CCA trial, > > all I can see is a requirement for licensees to pay an > > "administrative fee" of one million yen (annually, I think), and > > at today's exchange rates, that's about $10,000 in US dollars. > > Hmmm ... ok, not a big deal, except that its still not within the > typical arrangements made for open source projects. I.e., the > $10K/yr fee may stil lbe considered an unsurmountable hurdle > for some developers. $10,000 or $0.02 is an excessive fee for something that you can do yourself for free. Additionally to paying, you have to give away contractual agreements, including a non-disclosure agreement. Even if they were paying, this makes it impossible to release open source code that interoperates with DVD programming. For this reason, I think it is important to focus on "creating an open source DVD player" rather than one for Linux or "alternative operating systems". The MPAA will say that an open source player is inherently 'offered to the public' as banned by statue and offers no protection for their right of access control. This is good because it exposes the unconstitutionality of the DMCA: Congress cannot 'contract the public domain'. The public cannot be quarantined away from unpatented ideas. Only a patent, which requires disclosure and applies for a limited time can do this. These are Constitutional limitations that neither the Copyright power nor the Commerce power authorize, since neither allows the circumvention of the limitations inherent in the Patent clause. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 15:37:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30532 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:37:33 -0400 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 PAA30529 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:37:33 -0400 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:2.20) with ESMTP id PAA03386 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id PAA08425; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:39:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:39:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006131939.PAA08425@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] JOHN J. HOY deposition In-Reply-To: <0FW30019JR07B3@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> References: <8i5hk1$9hn$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <0FW30019JR07B3@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Hsieh writes: > > According to the license disclosed in the California DVD CCA trial, > > all I can see is a requirement for licensees to pay an "administrative > > fee" of one million yen (annually, I think), and at today's exchange > > rates, that's about $10,000 in US dollars. > > Hmmm ... ok, not a big deal, except that its still not within the > typical arrangements made for open source projects. I.e., the > $10K/yr fee may stil lbe considered an unsurmountable hurdle for > some developers. The license agreements may also have barriers to open-source development other than fees. A common screw case is a license agreement to some technology which forbids disclosure of some key information to non-licensees in any form --- this comes up often with new pieces of PC hardware, whose specfications are available only to people who have signed a non-disclosure agreement with the manufacturer. Which in turn, makes it very difficult to develop an open source driver for the gizmo in question, as the source code itself would inevitably disclose the confidential information. ("Winmodems" are the current cause celebre, though every few years a new manufacturer of graphics cards comes along and makes the same mistake). I haven't studied the relevant court filings in detail, but the ex-DVDCCA's website describes certain classes of CSS-related information as highly confidential... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 15:40:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30634 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:40:15 -0400 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA30628 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:40:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20000613194135.5416.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:41:35 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:41:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 --- Leland Ray wrote: > > Sure, you can compress and lose quality. > > The plaintiffs are saying that DeCSS represents a threat because > digital copying allows for perfect copies to be distributed. > However, a lossy compressed mp2 is by definition lower quality, > and this cannot be considered a perfect copy. As soon as we are talking about lessened quality videos, we're in the arena were we're competing with legitimate VCR recordings taped off of HBO or (gasp) a free network broadcast. The case for irreparable harm is greatly diminished. Hmmm. Could you argue that transmitting the movie in a way that is NOT access controlled constitutes abandonment of the access control right? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 15:45:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30696 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:45:35 -0400 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 PAA30693 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:45:34 -0400 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:2.20) with ESMTP id PAA04637 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:47:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id PAA10627; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:47:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:47:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006131947.PAA10627@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DAE@c100.clearway.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky@suba.com writes: > So the thrust of our counterargument to Schumann is: > > you can have high-quality, large copies which are difficult to distribute, > or you can have small, easy-to-distribute, but low-quality copies, but > with current tech you cannot have both. > > The compression required to make a DVD file anywhere *near* as easy to > distribute over the internet as Schumann says it is, quality of the movie > would be nowhere near perfect. Also, you don't need DeCSS to make low-quality copies --- video capture boards (or point-a-camera-at-the-screen technology, for the true slobs among us) will do just fine. That probably doesn't matter to the final outcome; "there are other ways to break this law" is a pretty poor argument there. However, it really does weaken the argument for irreparable harm (blocking DeCSS distribution doesn't keep people from making copies which are low-grade enough to be copied on the net), which is, if I understand things right, the standard the MPAA needs to sustain the injunction. But that may be water over the dam at this point... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 16:07:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31050 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:07:55 -0400 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 QAA31047 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:07:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA18444 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:09:46 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:09:45 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <200006131947.PAA10627@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.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 Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Robert S. Thau wrote: > sparky@suba.com writes: > > So the thrust of our counterargument to Schumann is: > > > > you can have high-quality, large copies which are difficult to distribute, > > or you can have small, easy-to-distribute, but low-quality copies, but > > with current tech you cannot have both. > > > > The compression required to make a DVD file anywhere *near* as easy to > > distribute over the internet as Schumann says it is, quality of the movie > > would be nowhere near perfect. > > Also, you don't need DeCSS to make low-quality copies --- video > capture boards (or point-a-camera-at-the-screen technology, for the > true slobs among us) will do just fine. > > That probably doesn't matter to the final outcome; "there are other > ways to break this law" is a pretty poor argument there. However, it > really does weaken the argument for irreparable harm (blocking DeCSS > distribution doesn't keep people from making copies which are > low-grade enough to be copied on the net), which is, if I understand > things right, the standard the MPAA needs to sustain the injunction. > No, that's the whole point of making the argument, to demolish (oh the word gives me the shivers) their harm case. We've done so for piracy via media. RS tried arguing that piracy is more viable over the internet. Oversimplified, suppositional. The miniscule hard data we ourselves have produced make RS' numbers ridiculous. Schulien's summary points out the networking restrictions in achieving numbers like RS'. Not hard data, but the promise for it is there if it comes to it. That only leaves data compression. But to compress data, you have to get rid of some of it. The more distributable a file becomes (on *current* internet connections) the less interest there is in distributing it there is, due to degraded quality. If there is interest in creating a file of such degraded quality, other tools are there. The real use of DeCSS is in creating a decrypted copy of equal quality to the original, and plaintiffs have to argue that distribution of that same file is a reality. Also, plaintiffs leave out of their compression tech hyperbole that once you compress a multimedia file, you usually don't get back the lost data.. They are making it sound like, compression-wise, data is like paper, when really it's like water. Compressing data = dixie cup instead of stein glass. sp > But that may be water over the dam at this point... > > rst > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 16:13:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31159 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:13:09 -0400 Received: from dial156.roadrunner.com (dial156.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.156] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA31156 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:13:04 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by dial156.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08540 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:15:04 -0600 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:15:01 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000613141501.A8452@orange.fenimore.org> References: <20000613194135.5416.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000613194135.5416.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 12:41:35PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 12:41:35PM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Leland Ray wrote: > > > > Sure, you can compress and lose quality. > > > > The plaintiffs are saying that DeCSS represents a threat because > > digital copying allows for perfect copies to be distributed. > > However, a lossy compressed mp2 is by definition lower quality, > > and this cannot be considered a perfect copy. > > As soon as we are talking about lessened quality videos, we're in the > arena were we're competing with legitimate VCR recordings taped off of > HBO or (gasp) a free network broadcast. The case for irreparable harm > is greatly diminished. > > Hmmm. Could you argue that transmitting the movie in a way that is NOT > access controlled constitutes abandonment of the access control right? This raises and interesting point. The plaintiffs are effectively arguing that different/derivative versions of a work with different image quality are different works (they pose much more of a "threat" if they are digital). Unless the works are different in some way, then there would be no basis to say theft of one over the other was a more serious problem. How many times has the copyright been registered for say, The Matrix? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 16:43:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31464 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:43:30 -0400 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 QAA31461 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:43:28 -0400 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:2.20) with ESMTP id QAA11571 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id QAA26144; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006132045.QAA26144@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: References: <200006131947.PAA10627@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky@suba.com writes: > Also, plaintiffs leave out of their compression tech hyperbole that once > you compress a multimedia file, you usually don't get back the lost data.. > They are making it sound like, compression-wise, data is like paper, when > really it's like water. Well, more like orange juice concentrate, if we're trying to get the analogies right --- all parts of the signal aren't equally pertinent to a human viewer, and lossy codecs attempt to selectively retain the stuff that people specifically notice, while filtering out things they don't. (Which does make them qualitatively different from other ways of degrading a signal --- the quality still goes down, but the ways that happens may not be as obvious in a quick demo as they would be for degradation which just adds noise). On the other hand, these hypothetical DVD copies would be degraded in a different way entirely --- the DVD's menu structure, overlays, alternate audio tracks, etc. would be absent. These features are often touted as reasons to buy the DVD version of a film instead of the equivalent tape.... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 17:01:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA32362 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:01:07 -0400 Received: from bunyip.flash.net (bunyip.flash.net [209.30.2.15]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA32279 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:01:01 -0400 Received: from debian.org ([209.30.224.73]) by bunyip.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26769 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:02:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3946A19B.352A90C2@debian.org> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:03:23 -0500 From: "Matthew R. Pavlovich" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Technical stuff 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 load on this list has completely swamped me. I am trying to get through as much of the content on the list as I can. I will be co-authoring a glossary of terms relevant to the case and DVD technology, which will no doubtably help a lot of the issues. I will be getting back to the tech questions real-soon-now (tm). I did not try to come off as needing a special invitation to answer technical questions earlier, just trying to come up with an easier way for me to contribute to this discussion because I cannot read every message. MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 17:07:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA32536 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:07:20 -0400 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 RAA32533 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:07:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA21423 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:09:12 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:09:11 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <200006132045.QAA26144@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.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 Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Robert S. Thau wrote: > sparky@suba.com writes: > > Also, plaintiffs leave out of their compression tech hyperbole that once > > you compress a multimedia file, you usually don't get back the lost data.. > > They are making it sound like, compression-wise, data is like paper, when > > really it's like water. > > Well, more like orange juice concentrate, if we're trying to get the > analogies right --- all parts of the signal aren't equally pertinent > to a human viewer, and lossy codecs attempt to selectively retain the > stuff that people specifically notice, while filtering out things they > don't. (Which does make them qualitatively different from other ways > of degrading a signal --- the quality still goes down, but the ways > that happens may not be as obvious in a quick demo as they would be > for degradation which just adds noise). > You're right as far as what is happening to the data when it's "compressed".. my analogy is re what happens when we try to *literally* compress the data.. water don't compress. ;) sparky > On the other hand, these hypothetical DVD copies would be degraded in > a different way entirely --- the DVD's menu structure, overlays, > alternate audio tracks, etc. would be absent. These features are > often touted as reasons to buy the DVD version of a film instead of > the equivalent tape.... > > rst > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 17:10:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00568 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:10:22 -0400 Received: from ogopogo.flash.net (ogopogo.flash.net [209.30.2.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00565 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:10:21 -0400 Received: from debian.org ([209.30.224.73]) by ogopogo.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21779 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:12:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3946A3CB.70204C71@debian.org> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:12:43 -0500 From: "Matthew R. Pavlovich" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declarationof Robert W. Schumann) 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 > I'm not (completely) sure, and after a quick search through > OpenLaw and Cryptome I can't seem to find a link to Matt's declaration > to examine the context -- but I suspect what he *meant* was: > > "There is no known player that [will] play [CSS-encrypted > data] from anything but a DVD disc." Further correcting it would be: "There is no known licensed player that will play encrypted data from anything but a DVD disc." This is b/c the [title] key needed to decrypt the sectors on the disk are stored in the disk key zone on the DVD disc ('secret' area). Without access to this area, the player would have no way to decrypt the data. > ...Which I believe *is* a true statement. Matt? Is this the > case? Is that meaning obvious from context, and did RS just neatly and > ingenuously excise the context-giving material? MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 17:21:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00807 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:21:32 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00804 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:21:30 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00525 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:23:20 -0400 Message-ID: <3946A626.78B9DD33@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:22:46 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 sparky wrote: > ... compression. But to compress data, you have to get rid of some of it.... Say rather you must get rid of at least the redundant data (lossless), but mpeg cannot be further (significantly) compressed using a lossless scheme. Therefore by also removing non-redundant data (lossy).... > The > more distributable a file becomes (on *current* internet connections) the > less interest there is in distributing it there is, due to degraded .... > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 17:29:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00963 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:29:37 -0400 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 RAA00960 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:29:35 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA22643 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:31:28 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:31:27 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <3946A626.78B9DD33@mindspring.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, 13 Jun 2000, Jeff Waller wrote: > > > sparky wrote: > > > ... compression. But to compress data, you have to get rid of some of it.... > > Say rather you must get rid of at least the redundant data (lossless), > but mpeg cannot be further (significantly) compressed using a lossless > scheme. Therefore by also removing non-redundant data (lossy).... > > > The > > more distributable a file becomes (on *current* internet connections) the > > less interest there is in distributing it there is, due to degraded .... > > > > Great. Incidentally, is mp3 a lossless or lossy codec? sp From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 17:31:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01030 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:31:12 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01027 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:31:11 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 131yIt-000649-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:32:59 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:32:59 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000613143259.H21439@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <3946A626.78B9DD33@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 04:31:27PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky writes: > Great. Incidentally, is mp3 a lossless or lossy codec? Lossy -- quite. -- 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 Jun 13 17:55:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01352 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:55:17 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01348 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:55:16 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA13280 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:57:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:57:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 06/13/00 at 16:31, 'twas brillig and sparky scrobe: > > Great. Incidentally, is mp3 a lossless or lossy codec? Lossy. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 18:04:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA01640 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:04:42 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA01637 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:04:41 -0400 Message-ID: <20000613220601.28750.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:06:01 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:06:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Technical stuff 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 Matthew... If you haven't done so already, I suggest you touch base with the FAQ team offline. I'm sure we would all enthusiastically welcome your contributions. You might also review the current FAQ to get a baseline of where we are. The FAQ document, which contains the contacts, is at http://www.cssfaq.org/dvd-discuss-faq.html Here's some of the legal points that technical expertise can help prove: 1. DeCSS contributed to the advancement of a open source/Linux player, even though it is a windows program 2. DVD's contain 'software instructions' that count as 'programs' under the *extremely* broad definition of the Copyright Act, so interoperability is occurring between programs. (or other ways to argue this). 3. The technical barriers to mass pirating over the internet of digital quality video preclude serious harm to the MPAA in the near future from DeCSS. 4. The licencing terms for CSS de facto prevent the development of an open source player. (Tell us more about your experience with the DVDCCA). These are what I could think of off the top of my head. --- "Matthew R. Pavlovich" wrote: > The load on this list has completely swamped me. I am trying to get > through as much of the content on the list as I can. > > I will be co-authoring a glossary of terms relevant to the case and > DVD technology, which will no doubtably help a lot of the issues. > I will be getting back to the tech questions real-soon-now (tm). > > I did not try to come off as needing a special invitation to answer > technical questions earlier, just trying to come up with an easier > way for me to contribute to this discussion because I cannot > read every message. > > MRP __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 18:18:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA01854 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:18:47 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01851 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:18:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA30513 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:20:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:20:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <200006132045.QAA26144@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.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 Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Robert S. Thau wrote: > sparky@suba.com writes: > > Also, plaintiffs leave out of their compression tech hyperbole that once > > you compress a multimedia file, you usually don't get back the lost data.. > > They are making it sound like, compression-wise, data is like paper, when > > really it's like water. > > Well, more like orange juice concentrate, if we're trying to get the Well, perhaps the different levels of quality could be described this way: Original movie (negative, or theatrical 35mm print) Fresh squeezed orange juice with seeds still in it DVD Unconcentrated OJ in cartons from the grocery store. VHS Orange juice from concentrate Most internet transferred VCDs/rm/mov files etc. Tang (sometimes as good as VHS, but not often) Boy, now I'm thirsty. ;) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 18:19:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA01920 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:19:31 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA01914 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:19:30 -0400 Message-ID: <20000613222054.957.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:20:54 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:20:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declarationof Robert W. Schumann) 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 --- "Matthew R. Pavlovich" wrote: > Further correcting it would be: > "There is no known licensed player that will play encrypted data > from anything but a DVD disc." > > This is b/c the [title] key needed to decrypt the sectors on the disk > are stored in the disk key zone on the DVD disc ('secret' area). > Without access to this area, the player would have no way to decrypt > the data. What, if anything, prevents the creation of a loopback file system that appears to the player to be a real DVD with 'secret' sectors and all. It seems like as soon as you can read the secret sector, you can create and populate a hard-drive based 'virtual' DVD drive that ordinary players would work with (and one that could be copied bit-for-bit). If your goal is piracy, you only need something that a licenced player THINKS is a legit DVD, right. How can a player truly authenticate that it is talking to a real DVD drive? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 18:36:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA02107 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:36:28 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA02102 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:36:14 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:41:04 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DB0@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New De clarationof Robert W. Schumann) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:41:04 -0400 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 There is a bus key that attempts to verify that the DVD is true DVD hardware prior to obtaining the player key. This makes it more difficult, though not impossible; my impression is that the bus key tries to make it more difficult for a computer owner to "fake" his DVD hardware and fool a licensed player. -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Taylor [mailto:bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 6:21 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declarationof Robert W. Schumann) --- "Matthew R. Pavlovich" wrote: > Further correcting it would be: > "There is no known licensed player that will play encrypted data > from anything but a DVD disc." > > This is b/c the [title] key needed to decrypt the sectors on the disk > are stored in the disk key zone on the DVD disc ('secret' area). > Without access to this area, the player would have no way to decrypt > the data. What, if anything, prevents the creation of a loopback file system that appears to the player to be a real DVD with 'secret' sectors and all. It seems like as soon as you can read the secret sector, you can create and populate a hard-drive based 'virtual' DVD drive that ordinary players would work with (and one that could be copied bit-for-bit). If your goal is piracy, you only need something that a licenced player THINKS is a legit DVD, right. How can a player truly authenticate that it is talking to a real DVD drive? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 19:19:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02449 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:19:07 -0400 Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA02446 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:19:05 -0400 Received: from 208-58-198-197.s197.tnt11.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.198.197]) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 131zyp-0007aW-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:20:24 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jerwin@college.antioch-college.edu (Unverified) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:12:22 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Jeremy Erwin Subject: [dvd-discuss] streaming dvd and other nonsence 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 Spurred on by the following letter, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46198-2000Jun12.html which argues that individuals who see any difference between theft of a tangible object and theft of the right to distribute exclusively are idiots, I viewed the article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9978-2000Jun6.html and got myself an account on www.scour.com, and searched or "Gladiator", which was mentioned in the original article. I found trailers, a few mp3's of the soundtrack, and a possible feature candidate (780 MB MPG2). However, I have only a 28.8 modem. Would anyone (with a beefier net connection, perhaps) care to investigate the article's claims of movie piracy? Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 19:30:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA03056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:30:48 -0400 Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA03053 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:30:47 -0400 Received: from 208-58-198-197.s197.tnt11.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.198.197]) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 1320AN-0002Ag-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:32:41 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jerwin@college.antioch-college.edu Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:19:59 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Jeremy Erwin Subject: [dvd-discuss] streaming dvd and other nonsence 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 Spurred on by the following letter, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46198-2000Jun12.html which argues that individuals who see any difference between theft of a tangible object and theft of the right to distribute exclusively are idiots, I viewed the article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9978-2000Jun6.html and got myself an account on www.scour.com, and searched or "Gladiator", which was mentioned in the original article. I found trailers, a few mp3's of the soundtrack, and a possible feature candidate (780 MB MPG2). However, I have only a 28.8 modem. Would anyone (with a beefier net connection, perhaps) care to investigate the article's claims of movie piracy? Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 13 21:20:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04460 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:20:26 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04457 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:20:22 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1321sl-0006Xh-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:22:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:22:15 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declarationof Robert W. Schumann) Message-ID: <20000613182215.K21439@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000613222054.957.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000613222054.957.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 03:20:54PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor writes: > What, if anything, prevents the creation of a loopback file system that > appears to the player to be a real DVD with 'secret' sectors and all. > It seems like as soon as you can read the secret sector, you can create > and populate a hard-drive based 'virtual' DVD drive that ordinary > players would work with (and one that could be copied bit-for-bit). If > your goal is piracy, you only need something that a licenced player > THINKS is a legit DVD, right. How can a player truly authenticate that > it is talking to a real DVD drive? I don't know what the DVD designers actually did, but in principle there are lots of authentication techniques that software could use to ask hardware to authenticate itself. You could have a challenge-response shared-secret protocol, where the DVD hardware has a long secret number burned into a tamper-resistant chip, and the software knows the same number. The software can then ask the player "Here is my own random number, n=69105b1a5fb66fb90177adacc4ab9078, which I just made up. What do you get if you calculate SHA(s^n)?" (SHA is the Secure Hash Algorithm; s is the shared secret number, which is known to the program but not transmitted anywhere during the protocol; "^" is the XOR operator.) If the "player" can answer correctly, it obviously knew s, if SHA is secure. That's just one possibility, which is resistent to many attacks (although you can still, for instance, reverse-engineer the software and so find out the value of s). -- 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 Jun 13 22:04:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04794 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:04:19 -0400 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 WAA04791 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:04:18 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA22313 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:06:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:06:10 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declarationof Robert W. Schumann) Message-ID: <20000613210610.A22257@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000613222054.957.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> <20000613182215.K21439@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <20000613182215.K21439@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:22:15PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:22:15PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Bryan Taylor writes: > > > What, if anything, prevents the creation of a loopback file system that > > appears to the player to be a real DVD with 'secret' sectors and all. > > It seems like as soon as you can read the secret sector, you can create > > and populate a hard-drive based 'virtual' DVD drive that ordinary > > players would work with (and one that could be copied bit-for-bit). If > > your goal is piracy, you only need something that a licenced player > > THINKS is a legit DVD, right. How can a player truly authenticate that > > it is talking to a real DVD drive? > > I don't know what the DVD designers actually did, but in principle > there are lots of authentication techniques that software could use to > ask hardware to authenticate itself. What they actually did is actually pretty easy- it's sort of a "do you know the CSS function" quiz. The player and drive both generate random numbers [1] and send them to each other. Both devices encrypt using the CSS function [2] and send the result back. If the result is correct (as calculated by the sender applying the same function) then the device is "authenticated". Each device can then calculate the "bus key" [3] is then calculated by, IIRC, concatenating the two encrypted results above (one from each device) and applying the CSS function again. Note that the bus key has never been sent over the wire, so it can be used as a shared secret to shield disk keys and title keys from prying eyes. Clever, but as soon as the function is known the whole system falls apart. Eric [1] I think the number is 80 bits in length but my memory is fuzzy. Frank? Do you know why it's 80 bits long? [2] I think there are actually four variations on CSS, so this CSS function is similar, but not exactly the same as, the CSS function used to later decrypt VOB data. I'm sure Frank knows more about this if anybody needs details. [3] I often intentionally leave the bus key out of descriptions of what's going on with all the other keys. Its sole purpose is to obfuscate (using XOR) other keys so you can't grab them with a bus analyzer. It doesn't really affect the operation of the rest of the system, so I (and others) often don't mention it in conversations because it makes everything more complicated and hard to explain. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 00:19:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA06605 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:19:10 -0400 Received: from web510.mail.yahoo.com (web510.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA06602 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:19:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20000614042030.2889.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:20:30 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:20:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declarationof Robert W. Schumann) 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: > > I don't know what the DVD designers actually did, but in principle > > there are lots of authentication techniques that software could use > > to ask hardware to authenticate itself. > > What they actually did is actually pretty easy- it's sort of a "do > you know the CSS function" quiz. Wow. So there are 4 keys involved: bus, player, disk, and title. This requires the DVD drive makers to be active participants in the scheme - I didn't realize this was the case. But I'm glad, because you are basically saying that the drive firmware is executing some kind of program in the process, which is yet another program that DeCSS is interoperating with. > The player and drive both generate random numbers [1] and send them > to each other. Both devices encrypt using the CSS function [2] and > send the result back. If the result is correct (as calculated by the > sender applying the same function) then the device is "authenticated". > Each device can then calculate the "bus key" [3] is then calculated > by, IIRC, concatenating the two encrypted results above (one from each > device) and applying the CSS function again. Note that the bus > key has never been sent over the wire, so it can be used as a > shared secret to shield disk keys and title keys from prying eyes. > Clever, but as soon as the function is known the whole system falls > apart. Hmmm. This seems to avoid a basic 'man in the middle attack'. On the other hand, by building such a proxy in the middle, you could pick up repeated trials of plaintext-ciphertext pairs, and since you can throw away the drive's supposed input and substitute your own, you can select the plaintext and see the corresponding ciphertext as often as you want. This seems like the ideal situation for cracking a weak algorithm. Also, this part of the game doesn't protect any copyrighted work - it's just a program talking to a piece of hardware. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 02:33:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA07236 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 02:33:52 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA07233 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 02:33:50 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA25485 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:35:33 -0500 Message-ID: <39472687.D38C9A89@mninter.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:30:31 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Homerun time References: <200006130748.DAA03123@oobleck.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 Seth Finkelstein wrote: > The problem with your point is that the quoting argument can > fail. For example, if a certain reprinting of a poem is ruled to fail > the fair-use test for copyright infringement, then it's quite possible > for a quoting in the sense you use it above to also be copyright > infringement, ie. "According to the ruling, it was held to be > copyright infringement to reprint: ". That also may be > copyright infringement. While the copyright analogy is a handy one, I think it is a special case. The plaintiffs cannot claim copyright violation for the DeCSS utility (meaning, they do not hold the copyright). If the copyright holder were suing for publishing the source or object code, your argument would hold plenty of water. > Well, yes, the problem is that does the latter get you off > the hook for the former? People have lost copyright infringement > cases even when claiming political purposes. Well, one thing at a time. ;) Mostly I was hoping to illustrate how not just the source code of software can be protected as speech. This attacks a portion of the plaintiff's argument that "speech" isn't a central issue because the source code is rarely found when traveling down 2600 links. The more reasons that links to DeCSS and DeCSS proper can be considered protected speech, the better. The way I see it there are two things holding up the injunction: the lack of speech value in DeCSS/links and harm. Now, regarding harm, I think the list is making good headway on a. the impracticality of transmitting a DeCSSd DVD, b. the lack of incentive to transmit a DeCSSd dvd over all media (modem, 100Mb, VCD), c. the value sacrificed separating a movie from its DVD. I would like to add another: In the vein of my previous inquiries, presuming a standard "home-access" license, everyone who owns a DVD player and a DVD has been granted access rights to the DVD. Every one of these people who use DeCSS would not violate access protection. Thus DeCSS has significant non-circumvention uses. Thus trafficking in it is legal. Barring a clear understanding of what rights to access a consumer has, this argument stands until the plaintiffs explain how home users can violate their access license. I'm still convinced that this revelation will be critical. If they're not willing to deliniate the nature of their access license voluntarily, this defense would force it, I think. Have I repeated myself enough? I feel like I'm being pretty redundant. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 05:42:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA08646 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 05:42:51 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA08643 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 05:42:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5E9icY07057 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:44:42 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:44:37 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000612020313.D722@zork.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 Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: >What if you decompress, resample, and recompress with a different >lossy codec? What these operations accomplish is an increase in the level of noise experienced by the watermark information stream. With sufficiently strong error correction, they can be dealt with. Of course, this either means more information stored (and so a lower picture quality) or a less durable mark (a smaller amount of noise will be sufficient to garble the watermark). Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 06:02:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA09131 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:02:04 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA09128 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:02:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5EA3vw10268 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:03:57 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:03:56 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Slight OT [was: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines] In-Reply-To: <832akskromm8b7s8eh6e3dq4cvk3k4bjjl@4ax.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, 12 Jun 2000, Ron Gustavson wrote: >Or even to listen to music without their "For Your Eyes Only" AC3 >video shades. IR networking will hook into a DRM server >for letting them hang with their homies.... Damn. And of course 'hanging' is productized separately, carrying a hefty *4 price tag. I would really love to market this... >Hell, even live acts will probably play through DRM recorders in >clubs if the marketing goes well. That's a funny idea. Would you be in violation of the DMCA if you took of the goggles? If they were dark enough and had a lock they would probably go for a TPM. Probably your hands would then be the implement of circumvention. I'm not quite sure that having an itch would qualify as a fair use defense. I figure the MPAA would go for an injunction on the offender using his hands. In the 2040's that is probably called 'an expansive interpretation of the law'. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 06:16:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA09418 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:16:57 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA09415 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:16:56 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 132AG2-0001qx-00; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:18:50 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 132AG3-0000ai-00; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:18:51 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:18:51 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann Message-ID: <20000614121851.A2203@inka.de> References: <20000612020313.D722@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 12:44:37PM +0300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 12:44:37PM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > >What if you decompress, resample, and recompress with a different > >lossy codec? > > What these operations accomplish is an increase in the level of noise > experienced by the watermark information stream. With sufficiently strong > error correction, they can be dealt with. Of course, this either means more > information stored (and so a lower picture quality) or a less durable mark > (a smaller amount of noise will be sufficient to garble the watermark). However if the watermarking algorithm and data became known, it should be possible for a recompressor to actively alter the image in such a way as to remove the watermark before performing the actual compression. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 06:20:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA09654 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:20:22 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA09651 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:20:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5EAME013480 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:22:14 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:22:13 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dec'l Daphne Gronich, n.3 In-Reply-To: <20000612124620.D560@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, 12 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: >copycontrol. If one can find a way to copy that simply ignores the existence of >the technological measure, then there is no point to calling the >measure a copy control. That would be logical if the Streambox (or not? about surpassing real's copy forbid bits) case didn't suggest the contrary. I believe that was precisely about ignoring a stupid little TPM. The same goes for SCMS, which is /real/ easy to surpass. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 06:40:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA09935 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:40:50 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA09932 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:40:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5EAggS16488 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:42:42 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:42:41 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time In-Reply-To: <000501bfd4b4$66f383a0$c17945ce@bugbug> 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, 12 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: >IF NOT "doctored media", THEN NOT "css = access control". Hmm. By contraposition this is equivalent to ((css=access control) => doctored media.) Just reading 1201 disproves this - there is no presupposition of effectiveness in the sense required to prove the above. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 07:07:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA10187 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:07:53 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA10184 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:07:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5EB9jG21284 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:09:46 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:09:44 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use In-Reply-To: <20000612185423.A24570@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, 12 Jun 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >But if there *were* no speed limit signs - no possible way whatsoever for you >to know you were breaking the law - then you're still getting the ticket but >you'll most likely beat it in court, because it's unreasonable to demand that >someone meet requirements that aren't available to them. Not true. Even in Western countries, it is possible to have laws which you theoretically can access and most obey but which aren't known even to law professors or judges. These 'you must bathe at least once per year' type of relics are just one example. People can be and are prosecuted under such laws. For instance, let's assume a kid plays around with an old radio, managing to half fix some part of it, but producing interference enough to bring about the FCC. There have been cases like this with considerable expense to the parents, even though there is /no way/ the kid (or the parents) could know that not tinkering with radios in certain ways is unlawful (but not by the law itself but by reference to some totally unreadable FCC regulations). Second, that you do not understand has never been a reason not to follow laws. Given the time this list spent trying to understand what 1201 actually says, not many people in this country would have been able to realize that distributing DeCSS was actually illegal. I think a fairly competent lawyer could, in the worst case, have made the same mistake. The original misunderstandings over whether there has to be infringement to violate 1201 demonstrate this nicely. >to use the DVD. If push comes to shove there, then you look at what >information was available to the end user, starting with "Authorized for Private >Home Use Only" printed on the DVD snapcase. Some time ago we had a nice little rule here in Finland which stated that eventhough the signs on roads told '100', at certain times in the winter it actually meant 80. It might well be that there is some data on this, somewhere. But there is no reason for it to be readily available. Another fun example is that here speed signs can be temporarely taken out of use by introducing a black bag over them. Now, seeing such a covered sign gives you no clue as to whether it was your friendly government or the occasional prankster that did the hiding. In more occasions than one this has been found *not* to be a sufficient reason to get away with speeding. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 09:14:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA11300 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:14:18 -0400 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA11297 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:14:16 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihgv.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.70.31]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA13817 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006141316.JAA13817@granger.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:09:55 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Copyright Office Beseiged In-Reply-To: <3946723F.FB304C79@mninter.net> References: <0FW3000WJ3RWLS@mta5.snfc21.pbi.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 The Wall Street Journal has a front-page article today on the new celebrity of the Copyright Office due to the digital copying controversy caused by the Internet. A demo last week in DC by Linux users is featured, and EFF's Robin Gross and movie and music spokespersons are quoted. The Journal notes that it belongs to a newspaper association opposed to granting exceptions to copyright provisions of the DMCA for libraries and researchers. Bear in mind that all the major newspapers belong to this association, which has joined with others in the copyright industry to oppose these exceptions, so it is unlikely that the papers will provide balanced reporting on the issue. As with the WSJ article today and recent New York Times coverage. Even so, I find the Journal's coverage of copyright issues involving the Internet best of the media, and occasionally it has provided superior reporting on the positive aspects of breaking the stranglehold of the copyright industry. Too bad its Web site is not free -- yet. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 10:19:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13212 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:19:05 -0400 Received: from cyclesoftware.com (www.cyclesoftware.com [209.46.107.178]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA13209 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:19:03 -0400 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000492464 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:20:21 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DB0@c100.clearway.com> References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DB0@c100.clearway.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:20:20 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: RE: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New De clarationof Robert W. Schumann) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1251130074==_ma============" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --============_-1251130074==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" It appears that someone might have created just such a program on the Mac. The URL is: http://www.ifrance.com/yoc/DVDExtractor.sit.bin I don't have the minimum 3 or 4 gigabytes free to try the disk image trick but it appears to be designed specifically to work with Apple's DVD Player application. When I tried extracting a single file (another option) and playing it with my 4DVD board I was not successful. I hope the author makes the source code public so it can be modified to work with other players. >There is a bus key that attempts to verify that the DVD is true >DVD hardware prior to obtaining the player key. This makes it >more difficult, though not impossible; my impression is that the >bus key tries to make it more difficult for a computer owner to >"fake" his DVD hardware and fool a licensed player. >... > > >--- "Matthew R. Pavlovich" wrote: > >> Further correcting it would be: >> "There is no known licensed player that will play encrypted data >> from anything but a DVD disc." >> >> This is b/c the [title] key needed to decrypt the sectors on the disk >> are stored in the disk key zone on the DVD disc ('secret' area). >> Without access to this area, the player would have no way to decrypt >> the data. > >What, if anything, prevents the creation of a loopback file system that >appears to the player to be a real DVD with 'secret' sectors and all. >It seems like as soon as you can read the secret sector, you can create >and populate a hard-drive based 'virtual' DVD drive that ordinary >players would work with (and one that could be copied bit-for-bit). If >your goal is piracy, you only need something that a licenced player >THINKS is a legit DVD, right. How can a player truly authenticate that >it is talking to a real DVD drive? > --============_-1251130074==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" RE: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discu
It appears that someone might have created just such a program on the Mac. The URL is:

http://www.ifrance.com/yoc/DVDExtractor.sit.bin

I don't have the minimum 3 or 4 gigabytes free to try the disk image trick but it appears to be designed specifically to work with Apple's DVD Player application. When I tried extracting a single file (another option) and playing it with my 4DVD board I was not successful. I hope the author makes the source code public so it can be modified to work with other players.

There is a bus key that attempts to verify that the DVD is true
DVD hardware prior to obtaining the player key. This makes it
more difficult, though not impossible; my impression is that the
bus key tries to make it more difficult for a computer owner to
"fake" his DVD hardware and fool a licensed player.
...


--- "Matthew R. Pavlovich" <mpav@debian.org> wrote:

> Further correcting it would be:
>        "There is no known licensed player that will play encrypted data
> from anything but a DVD disc."
>
> This is b/c the [title] key needed to decrypt the sectors on the disk
> are stored in the disk key zone on the DVD disc ('secret' area).
> Without access to this area, the player would have no way to decrypt
> the data.

What, if anything, prevents the creation of a loopback file system that
appears to the player to be a real DVD with 'secret' sectors and all.
It seems like as soon as you can read the secret sector, you can create
and populate a hard-drive based 'virtual' DVD drive that ordinary
players would work with (and one that could be copied bit-for-bit). If
your goal is piracy, you only need something that a licenced player
THINKS is a legit DVD, right. How can a player truly authenticate that
it is talking to a real DVD drive?
--============_-1251130074==_ma============-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 10:32:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13536 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:32:14 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA13533 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:32:12 -0400 Received: (qmail 3885 invoked by uid 502); 14 Jun 2000 14:36:41 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:36:41 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000614103641.C1040@linuxpower.org> References: <20000612185423.A24570@linuxpower.org> 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, Jun 14, 2000 at 02:09:44PM +0300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 02:09:44PM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > > >But if there *were* no speed limit signs - no possible way whatsoever for you > >to know you were breaking the law - then you're still getting the ticket but > >you'll most likely beat it in court, because it's unreasonable to demand that > >someone meet requirements that aren't available to them. > > Not true. Even in Western countries, it is possible to have laws which you > theoretically can access and most obey but which aren't known even to law > professors or judges. These 'you must bathe at least once per year' type of > relics are just one example. People can be and are prosecuted under such > laws. For instance, let's assume a kid plays around with an old radio, > managing to half fix some part of it, but producing interference enough to > bring about the FCC. There have been cases like this with considerable > expense to the parents, even though there is /no way/ the kid (or the > parents) could know that not tinkering with radios in certain ways is > unlawful (but not by the law itself but by reference to some totally > unreadable FCC regulations). > > [ rest snipped ] Not my point. I'm not talking about ignorance of the law. In situations where a law is on the books, then you're right - the citizen doesn't have to know the law in order to be found in violation of it. I'm also not talking about "blue laws" - unenforced, archaic laws that found their way onto the books centuries ago and are still there. That's an entirely different issue. (We have several here in Florida, U.S.; it's still against the law here to bathe without a bathing suit - throwback to the 1800's.) In your above example about the FCC, "unreadable FCC regulations" are still regulations that the kid could have looked up. They weren't being kept a secret; they were available. There would be a huge difference - at least in the U.S. - between busting the kid for breaking a law of which he was unaware and busting the kid for breaking a law that wasn't even part of the public record. If *I* was going to get into home radioing, the first thing *I* would do would be to contact the FCC and make sure I knew the regulations. Why? Because, as you have said, ignorance of the law is not a defense. But let's say that there *was* no law on the books, at least no public ones, so you have a situation where it was flat-out *impossible* for that kid to know. Not difficult, not impractical, not unlikely - IMPOSSIBLE. Effectively what you get then is governmental power possessing the arbitrary power to arrest and prosecute anyone, anywhere, for anything - and the power to make it stick. In short, a complete destruction of civil rights. Ja Wohl. Now we can argue whether or not governmental powers de facto have this ability anyway, but that's not really the point either. If the government truly had this sort of power, we'd be living in the Fourth Reich. I would argue that a law intended to regulate the public, though not available to the public, is not a law at all - it's a violation of basic civil rights. > Second, that you do not understand has never been a reason not to follow > laws. Given the time this list spent trying to understand what 1201 actually > says, not many people in this country would have been able to realize that > distributing DeCSS was actually illegal. I think a fairly competent lawyer > could, in the worst case, have made the same mistake. The original > misunderstandings over whether there has to be infringement to violate 1201 > demonstrate this nicely. You're making the same mistake as Seth - you're confusing perception with reason. And, at any rate, distribution of DeCSS in the United States has only been illegal for a select handful of people under limited circumstances. Until a judge rules that DeCSS is an "access control circumvention" device, it will remain so. I also suspect that the criminal/civil distinction will come into play here. Keep in mind that this case is a lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. > Some time ago we had a nice little rule here in Finland which stated that > eventhough the signs on roads told '100', at certain times in the winter it > actually meant 80. It might well be that there is some data on this, > somewhere. But there is no reason for it to be readily available. Another > fun example is that here speed signs can be temporarely taken out of use by > introducing a black bag over them. Now, seeing such a covered sign gives you > no clue as to whether it was your friendly government or the occasional > prankster that did the hiding. In more occasions than one this has been > found *not* to be a sufficient reason to get away with speeding. And no doubt similar things are probably happening here. Injustice happens all the time, but - and I admit, this is my own estimation - a competent judge would consider the circumstances of the situation. The Finland "100/80 in Winter" rule you quote, I'm sure, is a matter of public record somewhere. The fact that you are aware of it indicates that it isn't being kept a secret. Covered signs are interesting cases. If you lived in the neighborhood, drove that street every day for years, and one day the signs were covered - no, I doubt that would be a defense. The issue at that point would be whether or not the signs themselves carried the authority of the law, which they don't. You went by those signs every day for years; it's reasonable to assume that you've had an opportunity to be aware of the limit in that area. If you were from out of state, never drove through there before, and every other road in the area says "45 MPH".. you could build a case around that. It wouldn't be a "one size fits all" ruling, but it's a reasonable defense. People have walked on less. Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 11:28:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14326 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:28:23 -0400 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 LAA14323 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:28:21 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA23666 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:30:15 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:30:14 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Slight OT [was: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA-member owned search engines] 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, 14 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Ron Gustavson wrote: > > >Or even to listen to music without their "For Your Eyes Only" AC3 > >video shades. IR networking will hook into a DRM server > >for letting them hang with their homies.... > > Damn. And of course 'hanging' is productized separately, carrying a hefty *4 > price tag. I would really love to market this... > > >Hell, even live acts will probably play through DRM recorders in > >clubs if the marketing goes well. > > That's a funny idea. Would you be in violation of the DMCA if you took of > the goggles? If they were dark enough and had a lock they would probably go > for a TPM. Probably your hands would then be the implement of > circumvention. I'm not quite sure that having an itch would qualify as a > fair use defense. I figure the MPAA would go for an injunction on the > offender using his hands. In the 2040's that is probably called 'an > expansive interpretation of the law'. Next up, legislation to help every citizen become "Master of Their Domain". sparky > > Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 11:34:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14440 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:34:47 -0400 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 LAA14437 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:34:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA23919 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:36:37 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:36:36 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dec'l Daphne Gronich, n.3 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, 14 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > >copycontrol. If one can find a way to copy that simply ignores the existence of > >the technological measure, then there is no point to calling the > >measure a copy control. > > That would be logical if the Streambox (or not? about surpassing real's > copy forbid bits) case didn't suggest the contrary. I believe that was > precisely about ignoring a stupid little TPM. The same goes for SCMS, which > is /real/ easy to surpass. I haven't read the details of that case, but if it's a matter of streaming, copying itself is an infringement of copyright as the stream is a service. In our case, where it is a matter of sale of hard media, it seems much more likely that a method of pirating that effectively ignores the TPM shows that a means of circumventing the TPM is unnecessary for piracy. Currently plaintiffs are putting a lot of eggs in the "DeCSS is a necessary step in piracy" basket. sparky > > Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 11:50:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14559 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:50:03 -0400 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA14556 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:50:01 -0400 Message-ID: <20000614155121.18711.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:51:21 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:51:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Nice quote from Sony v Universal 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 was reading over Sony v Universal and came across this really nice quote in footnote 13: "While the law has never recognized an author's right to absolute control of his work, the natural tendency of legal rights to express themselves in absolute terms to the exclusion of all else is particularly pronounced in the history of the constitutionally sanctioned monopolies of the copyright and the patent. See, e. g., United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 156 - 158 (1948) (copyright owners claiming right to tie license of one film to license of another under copyright law); Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123 (1932) (copyright owner claiming copyright renders it immune from state taxation of copyright royalties); Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 349 -351 (1908) (copyright owner claiming that a right to fix resale price of his works within the scope of his copyright); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U.S. 131 (1936) (patentees claiming right to tie sale of unpatented article to lease of patented device)." Note that, if you include Sony v Universal in this category that 3 of the 5 losers are Motion Picutre companies. They just don't seem to learn. A short summary of the case with selected quotes is available at: http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/cases/summaries/Sony_v_Universal.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 11:56:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14684 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:56:18 -0400 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA14681 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:56:17 -0400 Message-ID: <20000614155737.23640.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:57:37 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:57:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Where's the Valenti Deposition? 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 last I heard, Jack Valenti was deposed June 6, the same day that the judge ordered 'prominent' people's depositions would be released to the public within three days. OK, so where is it? It's been 8 days. Anybody know what the holdup is? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 12:04:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA14801 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:04:46 -0400 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 MAA14798 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:04:44 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA25280 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:06:38 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:06:38 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time 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, 14 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > > >IF NOT "doctored media", THEN NOT "css = access control". > > Hmm. By contraposition this is equivalent to ((css=access control) => > doctored media.) Just reading 1201 disproves this - there is no > presupposition of effectiveness in the sense required to prove the above. > This criticism isn't based on 1201's def of effectiveness, which obviously isn't ever going to help the defense in the slightest. Rather, it reaches for a criterion more along the lines that CSS doesn't protect any reserved rights of the copyright holder. What we have with CSS is a TPM which is effective, in this sense, only for as long as the industry has the power to configure the hardware, both players and media, on the market, to work around it (or not). The only thing standing in the way of amateur "bit-for-bit", once prices have dropped, are such artificial manipulations of available tech. What this means is that CSS has no bearing on protecting reserved rights of the copyright holder. It may remain illegal to provide a decryptor such as DeCSS. But when *totally* blank DVDs are available, and DVD-RW drives have become as affordable as CD-RWs, (note that technical DVD faqs state DVD will replace CD) such a ruling would have zero effect of the kind it was intended to have. It would make it illegal to circumvent a TPM *just because*; there would be zero relation between the law and the real-world effect it was supposed to have. sparky > Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 12:10:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA14913 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:10:32 -0400 Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA14910 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:10:32 -0400 Received: from alaptop.hotwired.com ([12.78.116.226]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000614161153.IAYN6885.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@alaptop.hotwired.com> for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:11:53 +0000 Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000614121140.021d8800@pop.webcom.com> X-Sender: y2kc@pop.webcom.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:12:15 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Where's the Valenti Deposition? In-Reply-To: <20000614155737.23640.qmail@web511.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 Three days from receipt, or yesterday at the very latest. Late, perhaps, but not *that* late. -Declan At 08:57 6/14/2000 -0700, you wrote: >The last I heard, Jack Valenti was deposed June 6, the same day that >the judge ordered 'prominent' people's depositions would be released to >the public within three days. > >OK, so where is it? It's been 8 days. Anybody know what the holdup is? > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! >http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 12:14:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA14969 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:14:09 -0400 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 MAA14966 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:14:08 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA25752 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:16:02 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:16:01 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nice quote from Sony v Universal In-Reply-To: <20000614155121.18711.qmail@web513.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, 14 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Note that, if you include Sony v Universal in this category that 3 of > the 5 losers are Motion Picutre companies. They just don't seem to > learn. General effect of having that amount of money. Why exercise ingenuity to get what you want when you can hit with a bigger hammer? sp > > A short summary of the case with selected quotes is available at: > http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/cases/summaries/Sony_v_Universal.html > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > http://photos.yahoo.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 12:22:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA15042 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:22:17 -0400 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 MAA15039 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:22:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA26071 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:24:09 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:24:08 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declarationof Robert W. Schumann) In-Reply-To: <20000614042030.2889.qmail@web510.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, 13 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > > I don't know what the DVD designers actually did, but in principle > > > there are lots of authentication techniques that software could use > > > to ask hardware to authenticate itself. > > > > What they actually did is actually pretty easy- it's sort of a "do > > you know the CSS function" quiz. > > Wow. So there are 4 keys involved: bus, player, disk, and title. This > requires the DVD drive makers to be active participants in the scheme - > I didn't realize this was the case. But I'm glad, because you are > basically saying that the drive firmware is executing some kind of > program in the process, which is yet another program that DeCSS is > interoperating with. > Does this say to you something along the lines I'm trying to pursue, that the CSS scheme is effective in the sense that it protects a copyright holder's rights only as long as they can artificially control the tech market? sparky > > The player and drive both generate random numbers [1] and send them > > to each other. Both devices encrypt using the CSS function [2] and > > send the result back. If the result is correct (as calculated by the > > > sender applying the same function) then the device is > "authenticated". > > > Each device can then calculate the "bus key" [3] is then calculated > > by, IIRC, concatenating the two encrypted results above (one from > each > > device) and applying the CSS function again. Note that the bus > > key has never been sent over the wire, so it can be used as a > > shared secret to shield disk keys and title keys from prying eyes. > > Clever, but as soon as the function is known the whole system falls > > apart. > > Hmmm. This seems to avoid a basic 'man in the middle attack'. On the > other hand, by building such a proxy in the middle, you could pick up > repeated trials of plaintext-ciphertext pairs, and since you can throw > away the drive's supposed input and substitute your own, you can select > the plaintext and see the corresponding ciphertext as often as you > want. This seems like the ideal situation for cracking a weak > algorithm. > > Also, this part of the game doesn't protect any copyrighted work - it's > just a program talking to a piece of hardware. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > http://photos.yahoo.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 12:57:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA15454 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:57:25 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15451 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:57:23 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 132GVW-0007fC-00; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:59:14 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 132GVW-0004az-00; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:59:14 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:59:14 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declarationof Robert W. Schumann) Message-ID: <20000614185914.A17489@inka.de> References: <20000614042030.2889.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from sparky@suba.com on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 11:24:08AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 11:24:08AM -0500, sparky wrote: > > Wow. So there are 4 keys involved: bus, player, disk, and title. This > > requires the DVD drive makers to be active participants in the scheme - > > I didn't realize this was the case. But I'm glad, because you are > > basically saying that the drive firmware is executing some kind of > > program in the process, which is yet another program that DeCSS is > > interoperating with. > > Does this say to you something along the lines I'm trying to pursue, that > the CSS scheme is effective in the sense that it protects a copyright > holder's rights only as long as they can artificially control the tech > market? To me it does, but it also seems obvious that this would be true of any technological measure. Any player capable of outputing to a viewer is also capable of outputing to a recorder and without threats from content producers or the law, player manufacturers would have no incentive to try to prevent that. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 13:06:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA15711 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:06:56 -0400 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 NAA15708 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:06:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA27884 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:08:46 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:07:38 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declarationof Robert W. Schumann) In-Reply-To: <20000614185914.A17489@inka.de> 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, 14 Jun 2000, Sham Gardner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 11:24:08AM -0500, sparky wrote: > > > Wow. So there are 4 keys involved: bus, player, disk, and title. This > > > requires the DVD drive makers to be active participants in the scheme - > > > I didn't realize this was the case. But I'm glad, because you are > > > basically saying that the drive firmware is executing some kind of > > > program in the process, which is yet another program that DeCSS is > > > interoperating with. > > > > Does this say to you something along the lines I'm trying to pursue, that > > the CSS scheme is effective in the sense that it protects a copyright > > holder's rights only as long as they can artificially control the tech > > market? > > To me it does, but it also seems obvious that this would be true of any > technological measure. Any player capable of outputing to a viewer is also > capable of outputing to a recorder and without threats from content > producers or the law, player manufacturers would have no incentive to > try to prevent that. I think that's a point worth making though. I think this is a more specific way of saying what Frank (or was it David or Bruce Schneier?) saying in his declaration, that encryption does not work as a copyright protection scheme. There must always be artificial control of the market environment for it to be feasible (artificial to the TPM itself). Given that this is so, I think it is arguable that encryption, as a TPM, is really only a device to control the market - which is what everyone's been saying all along, though I haven't read a logical analysis which gets to this claim in a step-by-step fashion, or legal fashion. sparky > > Sham > > -- > http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ > > "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles > to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." > (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 13:14:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA15824 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:14:44 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA15821 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:14:40 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15405 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:16:16 -0500 Message-ID: <3947BC97.7FA9B38@mninter.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:10:47 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use 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 All well and good, but remember we are talking about a license or a contract, not a law. Both parties are expected to know and understand the rights and limitations the license or contract entails before it can even be considered binding, and if there is not disclosure of these at the time of sale (or, more liberally, if the rights and limitations are not "public knowledge"). Unless 1201 grants the right to copyright holders to pass laws. This may be an interesting avenue for discussion. > Not true. Even in Western countries, it is possible to have laws > which you > theoretically can access and most obey but which aren't known even to > law professors or judges. These 'you must bathe at least once per > year' type of relics are just one example. People can be and are > prosecuted under such laws. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 13:47:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA16067 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:47:34 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA16064 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:47:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 4946 invoked by uid 502); 14 Jun 2000 17:52:09 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:52:09 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000614135209.G1040@linuxpower.org> References: <3947BC97.7FA9B38@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <3947BC97.7FA9B38@mninter.net>; from Chris Moseng on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 12:10:47PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 12:10:47PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > All well and good, but remember we are talking about a license or a > contract, not a law. > > Both parties are expected to know and understand the rights and > limitations the license or contract entails before it can even be > considered binding, and if there is not disclosure of these at the time > of sale (or, more liberally, if the rights and limitations are not > "public knowledge"). > > Unless 1201 grants the right to copyright holders to pass laws. > > This may be an interesting avenue for discussion. "By granting content owners the legal right to punish anyone who picks the locks on their digital properties -- even if those locks prevent users from doing things traditionally permitted them under copyright law -- the United States' Digital Millennium Copyright Act (and its increasingly common analogues in other countries) effectively gave the owners the power to write their own intellectual-property statutes." http://207.87.15.232/issues/issue343/item8106.asp -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 13:58:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA16235 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:58:23 -0400 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA16232 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:58:21 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihgv.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.70.31]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA20221 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006141800.OAA20221@granger.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:53:37 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Where's the Valenti Deposition? In-Reply-To: <20000614155737.23640.qmail@web511.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 Depositions of Valenti and another prominent are to be made public later today, says anonymous. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 14:00:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA16334 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:00:56 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16331 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:00:55 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:03:16 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C3D@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:03:07 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: sparky [mailto:sparky@suba.com] > ... > > So the thrust of our counterargument to Schumann is: > > you can have high-quality, large copies which are difficult > to distribute, > or you can have small, easy-to-distribute, but low-quality copies, but > with current tech you cannot have both. Moreover, it is possible to create those small, easy-to-distribute copies -without- the use of DeCSS. > The compression required to make a DVD file anywhere *near* as easy to > distribute over the internet as Schumann says it is, quality > of the movie > would be nowhere near perfect. Warning: tech changes. Arguing that we can't distribute the large files easily -now- just lets then bring in the advance of technology and say "but that day will come". I'd really stress more on the alternative ways to create the smaller easy-to-distribute files than the limitation on distributing the perfect but larger ones... > > Motivation to piracy lessens significantly when the > distributed product > does not match or nearly match the original in both of these > qualities. Not so sure about this. Many people are eager to have something that noone (or few) others have. A bad copy of StarWars on video tape back when it was first released on film would still have been a highly sought-after property. > fleshing-out? > -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 14:19:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA16530 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:19:27 -0400 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 OAA16525 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:19:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA00931 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:21:20 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:20:20 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C3D@mail2.onetouch.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, 14 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sparky [mailto:sparky@suba.com] > > > ... > > > > So the thrust of our counterargument to Schumann is: > > > > you can have high-quality, large copies which are difficult > > to distribute, > > or you can have small, easy-to-distribute, but low-quality copies, but > > with current tech you cannot have both. > > Moreover, it is possible to create those small, easy-to-distribute > copies -without- the use of DeCSS. > > > The compression required to make a DVD file anywhere *near* as easy to > > distribute over the internet as Schumann says it is, quality > > of the movie > > would be nowhere near perfect. > > Warning: tech changes. Arguing that we can't distribute > the large files easily -now- just lets then bring in the > advance of technology and say "but that day will come". We want them to say that. First it's an admission that the tech doesn't exist now for piracy. So, little current threat posed by DeCSS. Second, we then can talk about other future threats of piracy that will make DeCSS pointless: cheap DVD-RW tech. DVD tech experts claim that DVD will replace CD, so it is likely that DVD-RW will become as cheap as CD-RW (correct me if I'm wrong, DVD tech experts). This tech will allow amateur bit-for-bit copying. DeCSS will become less necessary for piracy as tech advances, not more, entirely contrary to plaintiffs' claims. > > I'd really stress more on the alternative ways to create > the smaller easy-to-distribute files than the limitation > on distributing the perfect but larger ones... > > > > > Motivation to piracy lessens significantly when the > > distributed product > > does not match or nearly match the original in both of these > > qualities. > > Not so sure about this. Many people are eager to have > something that noone (or few) others have. A bad copy > of StarWars on video tape back when it was first released > on film would still have been a highly sought-after property. > Star Wars is not a fair example: bad copies of such popular movies are desired in themselves, not necessarily because they are cheaper than the original. Fan thing, and fans are still likely to buy the high-quality videotape. I think is a fair argument to make, seeing as plaintiffs' entire threat of piracy is based on the "digital copies same as the original" position. Retreading on that one is like, oh, idunno, trying to redefine "DeCSS". Something crazy like that. sparky > > fleshing-out? > > > > > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 14:46:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA16926 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:46:42 -0400 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 OAA16923 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:46:40 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id NAA24681 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:48:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:48:34 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Where's the Valenti Deposition? Message-ID: <20000614134834.A24594@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000614155737.23640.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> <200006141800.OAA20221@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <200006141800.OAA20221@granger.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 01:53:37PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 01:53:37PM -0400, John Young wrote: > Depositions of Valenti and another prominent are to > be made public later today, says anonymous. John, allow me to publicly thank you, "anonymous", and anyone else who's taking the time to put the documents up on cryptome.org. It's made a clear difference to this forum, and I'm sure everyone here is thankful for the access you've given us. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 14:49:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17036 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:49:17 -0400 Received: from mrs-2.smartworld.net (mrs-2-fix.smartworld.net [216.70.64.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17033 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:49:16 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-467.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.33.213]) by mrs-2.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA28783 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001801bfd631$81b186a0$b1e9fea9@oemcomputer> From: "freewwweb" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:51:06 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Oh boy. > >But if there *were* no speed limit signs - no possible way whatsoever for you > >to know you were breaking the law - then you're still getting the ticket but > >you'll most likely beat it in court, because it's unreasonable to demand that > >someone meet requirements that aren't available to them. > > Not true. Even in Western countries, it is possible to have laws which you > theoretically can access and most obey but which aren't known even to law > professors or judges. These 'you must bathe at least once per year' type of To end a poor analogy, most jurisdictions have a "default" speed limit like 25 mph when no limit is posted. Ignorance is no excuse; you can't drive 70 in a residential neighborhood just because there are no signs posted. Analogies are dangerous creatures. > Second, that you do not understand has never been a reason not to follow > laws. Given the time this list spent trying to understand what 1201 actually > says, not many people in this country would have been able to realize that > distributing DeCSS was actually illegal. I think a fairly competent lawyer > could, in the worst case, have made the same mistake. The original > misunderstandings over whether there has to be infringement to violate 1201 > demonstrate this nicely. Void for Vagueness? If the definition of "access" and "access-controls" and "circumvention" are really ambiguous enough that they are as broad or as narrow as the MPAA decides, post hoc, then there may be a new issue with 1201: it may be void for vagueness. The law directly reaches speech, as describing methods to circumvent access (footnote this probably includes discussions in this mailing list, this mailing list is could be violating the DMCA merely by discussing DeCSS and REing the hardware DVD check) are covered. As it is virtually impossible for a person, or a lawyer, or a hacker, or anyone to know whether something violates the law (an "authorized" DVD player versus an "unauthorized" DVD player, what technologies constitute access controls and which are just restrictive features, there seems to be a new first amendment angle on the case. > >information was available to the end user, starting with "Authorized for Private > >Home Use Only" printed on the DVD snapcase. While the home use license is likely an effective grant of authority in this case to access the work, it would be really unsatisfying if the MPAA could enforce such provisions merely by changing a few words in 6 pt type on the back of a jewel case, and we're all back in court a year later. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 14:54:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17169 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:54:55 -0400 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 OAA17166 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:54:53 -0400 Received: from travel-net.com (trj36.travel-net.com [207.176.160.36]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22651 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:56:40 -0400 Message-ID: <3947D564.63AD2CE5@travel-net.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:56:36 -0400 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Where's the Valenti Deposition? References: <20000614155737.23640.qmail@web511.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 Well I dont know how things work down there, but up here in the frozen North, it used to take a lot more than 3 days for depositions to get faithfully and copies sent to the parties for review. Im guessing here: perhaps he meant 3 days after they were given to counsel? Bryan Taylor wrote: > > The last I heard, Jack Valenti was deposed June 6, the same day that > the judge ordered 'prominent' people's depositions would be released to > the public within three days. > > OK, so where is it? It's been 8 days. Anybody know what the holdup is? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > http://photos.yahoo.com -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 14:58:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17260 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:58:49 -0400 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 OAA17257 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:58:47 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA10794 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3947D51C.4DEE289E@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:55:24 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 sparky wrote: > We want them to say that. First it's an admission that the tech doesn't > exist now for piracy. So, little current threat posed by DeCSS. Second, we > then can talk about other future threats of piracy that will make DeCSS > pointless: cheap DVD-RW tech. DVD tech experts claim that DVD will replace > CD, so it is likely that DVD-RW will become as cheap as CD-RW (correct me > if I'm wrong, DVD tech experts). This tech will allow amateur bit-for-bit > copying. DeCSS will become less necessary for piracy as tech advances, not > more, entirely contrary to plaintiffs' claims. Sure, it'll be as cheap (probably) but it will never be analogous to CD-R and CD-RW in terms of capacity, compatibility, and universality. You can't do dual layers in recordable or rewritable media - or rather, you can do it, but it's not practical, reliable, or cost-effective to manufacture. Writable versions of DVD may never be as popular as writable CDs because they will probably always be crippled in some way - for example, there will be areas on the media blocked out or hidden (just like in DVD-R) so that the copy can always be distinguished from an "authorized" original. It won't allow for amateur bit for bit copying like CD-R and RW do for pressed CDs. You're right that DeCSS will become less necessary for piracy as tech advances, but not for this reason. But then, DeCSS was never necessary for piracy. Only for fair use. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 15:15:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17470 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:15:02 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA17467 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:15:00 -0400 Received: (qmail 5412 invoked by uid 502); 14 Jun 2000 19:19:37 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:19:37 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Message-ID: <20000614151937.H1040@linuxpower.org> References: <001801bfd631$81b186a0$b1e9fea9@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <001801bfd631$81b186a0$b1e9fea9@oemcomputer>; from freewwweb on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 02:51:06PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 02:51:06PM -0400, freewwweb wrote: > Oh boy. > > > >But if there *were* no speed limit signs - no possible way whatsoever for > you > > >to know you were breaking the law - then you're still getting the ticket > but > > >you'll most likely beat it in court, because it's unreasonable to demand > that > > >someone meet requirements that aren't available to them. > > > > Not true. Even in Western countries, it is possible to have laws which you > > theoretically can access and most obey but which aren't known even to law > > professors or judges. These 'you must bathe at least once per year' type > of > > To end a poor analogy, most jurisdictions have a "default" speed limit like > 25 mph when no limit is posted. Ignorance is no excuse; you can't drive 70 > in a residential neighborhood just because there are no signs posted. > Analogies are dangerous creatures. Oh, lord. Even a "default" speed limit would be a matter of public record; there is still a basis for the claim that the speeder could have reasonably known the law. No one is claiming that the speeder is violating a *secret* speed limit. When folks are arguing that two corporate powers can sign a treaty, decide between themselves what "authorization" is, keep that definition a secret from the very people who would need to know it - I still maintain that this secrecy would make a hell of a good defense should the issue come up in court. The issue would not be ignorance of the law; the issue would be whether a citizen in a free society can be prosecuted for not doing the impossible - obeying to the letter legal mandates which are purposely being held from that citizen. For the last time, folks, this isn't about whether or not someone can be held responsible for violating laws of which they are ignorant. Come on, guys, give me some credit - of course they can. That's called being a citizen. This is about whether, in a free society, a "law" which is being purposely obscured - whether by intercorporate contract, secret society or whatever - to the point that it is *impossible* for the individual to know whether or not the law is being violated, whether that law can and should be used to prosecute someone. Imagine that some governmental agency had the power to quietly make a new rule that made it a capital offense to watch television between 10am and noon on Wednesdays. Since they know this would cause an uproar, it isn't put into the public record; word is just quietly sent to the police to start arresting offenders, which they do. Folks start disappearing at night; rumors start going around. You could argue that the folks getting arrested in the dead of night were still responsible, because ignorance of the law is no excuse. Would you consider such a "rule" to actually be a legitimate law, or a massive abuse of governmental power and a violation of civil rights? How good of a citizen are you? What *kind* of a citizen are you? Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 15:16:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17576 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:16:57 -0400 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 PAA17573 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:16:56 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA03358 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:18:41 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:18:41 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <3947D51C.4DEE289E@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, 14 Jun 2000, Dana Parker wrote: > sparky wrote: > > > We want them to say that. First it's an admission that the tech doesn't > > exist now for piracy. So, little current threat posed by DeCSS. Second, we > > then can talk about other future threats of piracy that will make DeCSS > > pointless: cheap DVD-RW tech. DVD tech experts claim that DVD will replace > > CD, so it is likely that DVD-RW will become as cheap as CD-RW (correct me > > if I'm wrong, DVD tech experts). This tech will allow amateur bit-for-bit > > copying. DeCSS will become less necessary for piracy as tech advances, not > > more, entirely contrary to plaintiffs' claims. > > Sure, it'll be as cheap (probably) but it will never be analogous to CD-R and > CD-RW in terms of capacity, compatibility, and universality. You can't do dual > layers in recordable or rewritable media - or rather, you can do it, but it's > not practical, reliable, or cost-effective to manufacture. Writable versions > of DVD may never be as popular as writable CDs because they will probably > always be crippled in some way - for example, there will be areas on the media > blocked out or hidden (just like in DVD-R) so that the copy can always be > distinguished from an "authorized" original. It won't allow for amateur bit > for bit copying like CD-R and RW do for pressed CDs. > > You're right that DeCSS will become less necessary for piracy as tech > advances, but not for this reason. But then, DeCSS was never necessary for > piracy. Only for fair use. Hm, bummer.. Well, could you embellish on that? What technical reasons will make decryptors less necessary for piracy? I can think of a scenario where we have a software movie player which could play an encrypted movie stored to a hard drive. Then tech advances allowing distro of DVD size files over the internet would not have to be decrypted to be playable. sparky > > -- > Dana J. Parker > http://www.cdpage.com > http://www.emediapro.net > http://www.dvdpro.net > > mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 16:03:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA17918 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:03:33 -0400 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 QAA17915 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:03:32 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA14137 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3947E44D.BB3816F8@cdpage.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:00:13 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 sparky wrote: > Hm, bummer.. Well, could you embellish on that? What technical reasons > will make decryptors less necessary for piracy? Something like this, perhaps. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news_224031.html -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 16:21:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA18114 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:21:06 -0400 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 QAA18111 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:21:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA06296 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:22:59 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:22:59 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <3947E44D.BB3816F8@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, 14 Jun 2000, Dana Parker wrote: > sparky wrote: > > > Hm, bummer.. Well, could you embellish on that? What technical reasons > > will make decryptors less necessary for piracy? > > Something like this, perhaps. > > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news_224031.html > Hm.. pretty short on the "pirate's charter" angle.. but the copyright protection through market manipulation is definitely evoked in the passages about contracts and Firewire being made off-limits.. sp > > -- > Dana J. Parker > http://www.cdpage.com > http://www.emediapro.net > http://www.dvdpro.net > > mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 17:03:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19314 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:03:50 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA19311 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:03:47 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:06:13 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C43@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New De clarationof Robert W. Schumann) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:06:06 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: sparky [mailto:sparky@suba.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 9:24 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New > Declarationof Robert W. Schumann) > > > > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > > --- Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > > > > I don't know what the DVD designers actually did, but > in principle > > > > there are lots of authentication techniques that > software could use > > > > to ask hardware to authenticate itself. > > > > > > What they actually did is actually pretty easy- it's sort of a "do > > > you know the CSS function" quiz. > > > > Wow. So there are 4 keys involved: bus, player, disk, and > title. This > > requires the DVD drive makers to be active participants in > the scheme - > > I didn't realize this was the case. But I'm glad, because you are > > basically saying that the drive firmware is executing some kind of > > program in the process, which is yet another program that DeCSS is > > interoperating with. > > > > Does this say to you something along the lines I'm trying to > pursue, that > the CSS scheme is effective in the sense that it protects a copyright > holder's rights only as long as they can artificially control the tech > market? > Or perhaps that the use of CSS is in and of itself proof of an illegal tying between: film makers/distributers, DVD drive makers, DVD "blank" makers & consumer DVD player makers? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 17:12:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19475 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:12:39 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA19472 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:12:38 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:15:04 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C44@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:15:02 -0700 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 Which was the point: the issue of granting of authority to view the work to the end user can -not- be governed by a contract which they have never and can never see. Therefore, it can not be possible for the granting of this authority to be conveyed through the use of a licensed DVD player because the end user can not see the terms of the contract between the motion picture industry and the DVD maker that would grant that authority. To back this up there is something in the DVD player license that states that it does -not- grant any such authority (check the archives for specifics). Therefore the only reasonable place for the authority to view the contents of the DVD is at first sale. As evidence backing for this theory is the text on the DVD cover saying that it is "for home use only", thus establishing restrictions on holding public viewings of the material on the DVD, and implying that the user now has the authority to access it for personal use. NOTHING is stated or implied about HOW that access is to take place (i.e. only through the use of a licensed and approved DVD player). Therefore: using DeCSS for media shifting should be legal. It's only when you start distributing the results that you get into trouble ... but you'd get into just as much trouble distributing the VHS tape you made by using a video capture card, VCR, or any of the other methods available for making copies of varying quality. The offense is in redistributing a work which you have been restricted from distributing -- the means used to create the copies you attempt to distribute are immaterial. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Moseng [mailto:moseng@mninter.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 10:11 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use > > > All well and good, but remember we are talking about a license or a > contract, not a law. > > Both parties are expected to know and understand the rights and > limitations the license or contract entails before it can even be > considered binding, and if there is not disclosure of these > at the time > of sale (or, more liberally, if the rights and limitations are not > "public knowledge"). > > Unless 1201 grants the right to copyright holders to pass laws. > > This may be an interesting avenue for discussion. > > > > Not true. Even in Western countries, it is possible to have laws > > which you > > theoretically can access and most obey but which aren't > known even to > > law professors or judges. These 'you must bathe at least once per > > year' type of relics are just one example. People can be and are > > prosecuted under such laws. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 17:14:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19630 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:14:58 -0400 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 RAA19598 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:14:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA08858 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:16:31 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:15:37 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: TECH: Pavlovich Decl. meaning (was: Re: [dvd-discuss] New De clarationof Robert W. Schumann) In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C43@mail2.onetouch.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, 14 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sparky [mailto:sparky@suba.com] > > > > Does this say to you something along the lines I'm trying to > > pursue, that > > the CSS scheme is effective in the sense that it protects a copyright > > holder's rights only as long as they can artificially control the tech > > market? > > > > Or perhaps that the use of CSS is in and of itself proof > of an illegal tying between: film makers/distributers, DVD > drive makers, DVD "blank" makers & consumer DVD player > makers? That would be extreme.. but most efficient. sp > > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 17:25:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19870 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:25:38 -0400 Received: from mail02.rapidsite.net (mail02.rapidsite.net [207.158.192.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA19867 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:25:37 -0400 Received: from www.terasound.com (209.130.70.19) by mail02.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.57s) with SMTP id 01259621 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3947F95F.8271902@terasound.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:30:07 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9=20St=E4mpfli?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Courtney Love, RIAA, and Napster Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop-Detect: 1 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Artist side view of the recording industry: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html Rene From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 17:40:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20126 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:40:53 -0400 Received: from mrs-2.smartworld.net (mrs-2-fix.smartworld.net [216.70.64.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20108 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:39:43 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-350.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.33.96]) by mrs-2.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA42804 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005e01bfd649$4e7dfee0$b1e9fea9@oemcomputer> From: "freewwweb" To: References: <3947BC97.7FA9B38@mninter.net> <20000614135209.G1040@linuxpower.org> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:05:24 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > All well and good, but remember we are talking about a license or a > > contract, not a law. > > > > Both parties are expected to know and understand the rights and > > limitations the license or contract entails before it can even be > > considered binding, and if there is not disclosure of these at the time > > of sale (or, more liberally, if the rights and limitations are not > > "public knowledge"). > > > > Unless 1201 grants the right to copyright holders to pass laws. There's a growing trend among IP types, especially the 7th circuit and Federal Circuit, to allow owners of IP to license or contract any terms not specifically -excluded- by law. You can waive your 107 fair use rights (as the MPAA claims) through contract, or (according to the MPAA interpretation) through their use of technological measures that the consumer doesn't even know about. UCITA effectively does this for all software, whether the interests covered are copyrighted or not. The idea is that individuals should be able to bargain whatever terms the market calls for--except these decisions tend to ignore the one-to-many status of click-wrap consumer contracts or published movies in DVD format. If the MPAA is right, then, yes, any large copyright holder (MPAA, Microsoft, RIAA, AOL-Time-Warner-Turner) can effectively make private law against the entire public by including a click-wrap license, or a technological measure which pretextually protects a copyright interest but primarily just leverages 1201 to take extra rent from the public using their market power. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 17:56:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20496 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:56:54 -0400 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20493 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:56:53 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inigug.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.67.208]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA17626 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:58:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006142158.RAA17626@blount.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:58:44 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs In-Reply-To: <200006141800.OAA20221@granger.mail.mindspring.net> References: <20000614155737.23640.qmail@web511.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 Five docs were provided today for the New York case. All five in a Zipped file: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-061400.zip (196K) Or individually: Jack Valenti Deposition, June 6, 2000 http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm (134K) Kenneth Jacobsen Deposition - Part 1, May 17, 2000 http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-kjd.htm (308K) Kenneth Jacobsen Deposition - Part 2, May 18, 2000 http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-kj2.htm (203K) Transcript of Press/Public Deposition Bar Hearing, June 6, 2000 http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-pot.htm (122K) Transcript of Discovery Hearing, June 8, 2000 http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-dht.htm (54K) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 17:59:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20620 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:59:29 -0400 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20617 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:59:28 -0400 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23585 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:01:17 -0700 Received: from [17.221.92.145] (bh2145.apple.com [17.221.92.145]) by scv3.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA12276 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200006142201.PAA12276@scv3.apple.com> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:01:15 -0700 x-sender: awells@mail.apple.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Wells 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 >Which was the point: the issue of granting of authority >to view the work to the end user can -not- be governed >by a contract which they have never and can never see. Has anyone bought a DVD player or DVD-ROM drive recently? If so, perhaps there's something in the manual, warranty, or other assorted fine print that details the authority-granting contract. Someone who still has their DVD player documentation needs to scrutinize the fine print. adam From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 18:14:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20868 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:14:16 -0400 Received: from geulph.frogspace.net (root@[64.6.226.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA20865 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:14:15 -0400 Received: from [210.160.35.21] (helo=vaio) by geulph.frogspace.net with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 132Kw7-0001hk-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:43:00 -0700 Message-ID: <000201bfd649$7b985240$1523a0d2@vaio> From: "Robert Wilde" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] Interesting Jacobsen Excision Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:42:40 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's an odd bit. On page 280 of the deposion, in the middle of a large section that has been excised, there is one line left in the record: 23 illegal to resell DVDs? It seems likely he is being asked if it's illegal to resell DVDs. It's too bad the answer (and most of the question) is marked confidential. Overall, there seems to be quite a lot of meat cut out from the deposition. The whole bit on the CPWG and the meetings with the DVDCCA lawyer present was quite interesting though. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 18:16:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20971 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:16:35 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA20968 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:16:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03149 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:18:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:18:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs In-Reply-To: <200006142158.RAA17626@blount.mail.mindspring.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, 14 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > Five docs were provided today for the New York case. > > Jack Valenti Deposition, June 6, 2000 > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm (134K) > Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he knows his own name. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 18:32:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA21091 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:32:35 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA21088 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:32:34 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19351 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:34:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3947FB87.74E1BE60@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:39:19 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Comments on Transcript of Protective Order Hearing 6/6/2000 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 Just read through the transcript of the protective order hearing on the cryptome website. Here is an interesting comment and an interesting exchange. First, Judge Kaplan: 2 THE COURT: That is persuasive only to a point. We 3 are now six weeks away from a trial. If they can't remotely, 4 as you suggest, prove the allegations they have made in this 5 case, embarrassment on the Internet is going to be the least 6 of their problems, because I am going to call this case, one 7 way or another. Obviously, listening to the two of you, 8 somebody is full of baloney. I won't have any hesitation 9 about saying who it is when I see the evidence. So, while I 10 understand this embarrassment notion, I understand both sides 11 are conducting as much of a public relations campaign as a 12 lawsuit, maybe more, but the game all stops next month. Whew! And later ... 24 MS. ABRUTYN: Even if that is the case, there are two 25 possible remedies. The first one is that your Honor could 1 rule the depositions shouldn't go forward in the first place, 2 in which case there would be nothing to have access to, if 3 Mr. Garbus is off on a fishing expedition. 4 THE COURT: I am not accusing him alone. 5 MS. ABRUTYN: Or if both sides are -- 6 THE COURT: This is a bass tournament. I like his sense of humor! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 18:33:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA21204 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:33:54 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA21201 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:33:53 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19476 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:35:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3947FBD8.FD94961B@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:40:40 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] New material on the cryptome website 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 There are some freshly released documents on the cryptome.org website: MPAA v. 2600 - Transcript Press Bar Hearing June 14, 2000 MPAA v. 2600 - Transcript Discovery Hearing June 14, 2000 MPAA v. 2600 - Jack Valenti Deposition June 14, 2000 MPAA v. 2600 - Kenneth Jacobsen Deposition 2 June 14, 2000 MPAA v. 2600 - Kenneth Jacobsen Deposition 1 June 14, 2000 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 18:35:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA21293 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:35:05 -0400 Received: from pimout8-int.prodigy.net (pimout8-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.111]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA21290 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:35:04 -0400 Received: from ajimtayvaldo (KRLDA010-0829.splitrock.net [63.253.251.67]) by pimout8-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA155546 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:36:59 -0400 From: "Jim Taylor" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] [Fwd: IP: DVDs & Apex] Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:36:36 -0700 Message-ID: <003401bfd651$00ce7a50$43fbfd3f@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20000406091100.A21405@inka.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham is correct. He did indeed see temporal artifacts caused by standards conversion in the Apex player. The NTSC/PAL differences on DVD are quite real, even including the good old 4% audio speedup. See section 1.19 of my DVD FAQ for more information. -- Jim Taylor Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Sham Gardner Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 12:11 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [Fwd: IP: DVDs & Apex] > >First of all, the PAL/NTSC designations on DVDs encoded with MPEG-2 > >are phony. There is no such thing. I may have just been deluding myself, but when I played "NTSC" DVDs in PAL I thought I could see motion artifacts suggesting that a recording stored at 60Hz (NTSC) was being played at 50 (PAL). > >BTW, while it is illegal to sell Region 1 DVDs in UK stores that are > >licensed by the movie industry, It isn't here in Germany. At least every major store selling DVDs I've seen here sells Region 1 as well as 2. Sham From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 18:38:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA21341 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:38:21 -0400 Received: from mrs-2.smartworld.net (mrs-2-fix.smartworld.net [216.70.64.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA21338 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:38:20 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-506.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [64.38.33.252]) by mrs-2.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA88858 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:40:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000c01bfd651$85537f00$e4abfea9@oemcomputer> From: "freewwweb" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:39:54 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he > knows his own name. All the man who invented Camelot for Kennedy knows is that any use of encryption is a violation of the DMCA, although he doesn't know what the DMCA is :) I'm suspicious of the "confidential" sections on region coding, etc. It seems like they are more concerned about protecting their illegal conduct rather than actual confidential communications. Does anyone here know anything about third party standing to challenge confidentiality orders? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 18:41:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA21389 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:41:36 -0400 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 SAA21386 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:41:35 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA25230 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:43:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:43:29 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs Message-ID: <20000614174329.A25183@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200006142158.RAA17626@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: ; from cpt@gryphon.auspice.net on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > > > Five docs were provided today for the New York case. > > > > Jack Valenti Deposition, June 6, 2000 > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm (134K) > > > > Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he > knows his own name. No kidding. Reading that ticks me off more than just about anything else in this case. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Valenti is when he says he has no idea who DVDCCA is (or any one of the other hundreds of "I don't know" answers), and somebody surfaces with evidence that he's lying. Does it impact the case in any way? Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 18:46:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA21460 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:46:18 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA21457 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:46:17 -0400 Received: (qmail 6548 invoked by uid 502); 14 Jun 2000 22:50:50 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:50:50 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs Message-ID: <20000614185050.J1040@linuxpower.org> References: <200006142158.RAA17626@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Joshua Stratton on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > > > Five docs were provided today for the New York case. > > > > Jack Valenti Deposition, June 6, 2000 > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm (134K) > > > > Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he > knows his own name. Oh. My. God. I'm speechless. This is just incredible. Choice Valenti quotes: On encryption: "Any time that you circumvent an encryption you're violating the law." On Fair Use: "It means that libraries or schoolteachers can play movies in their classrooms for educational purposes." On Lobbying: "I have one person that handles congress" And my favorite: Q Do you know who Mr. Schumann is? A Schumann? Q Yeah. A What's his first name? Q Robert? A Great composer. I love his music. And *this* is the guy Congress goes to for a qualified opinion?? -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 18:46:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA21508 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:46:54 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA21503 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:46:53 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03242 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:48:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:48:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs In-Reply-To: <20000614174329.A25183@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 Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > > > > > Five docs were provided today for the New York case. > > > > > > Jack Valenti Deposition, June 6, 2000 > > > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm (134K) > > > > > > > Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he > > knows his own name. > > No kidding. Reading that ticks me off more than just about anything else > in this case. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Valenti is when > he says he has no idea who DVDCCA is (or any one of the other hundreds of > "I don't know" answers), and somebody surfaces with evidence that he's > lying. Does it impact the case in any way? > Well, I did get a kick out of the Robert Schumann answer, even though he didn't know who he was either. We really need to make a cheat sheet of technical information for Garbus though. While I'm sure that it's not really a big thing in court if he refers to Linux as an organization or a dvd player as an OS it is a little annoying. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 19:34:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA21825 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:34:26 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA21822 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:34:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03425 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:35:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:35:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting Jacobsen Excision In-Reply-To: <000201bfd649$7b985240$1523a0d2@vaio> 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 Well on page 106 there's this choice answer: 7 A. Anyone who might be offering for 8 sale a DVD on the internet, which we believe is 9 unauthorized. I guess we know why Reel.com went out of business. I suppose the MPAA needs to write C&D letters to Amazon, Buy, Barnes & Nobel, etc. now. On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Robert Wilde wrote: > Here's an odd bit. On page 280 of the deposion, in the middle of a large > section that has been excised, there is one line left in the record: > > 23 illegal to resell DVDs? > > It seems likely he is being asked if it's illegal to resell DVDs. It's too > bad the answer (and most of the question) is marked confidential. Overall, > there seems to be quite a lot of meat cut out from the deposition. The > whole bit on the CPWG and the meetings with the DVDCCA lawyer present was > quite interesting though. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 19:45:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA21986 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:45:53 -0400 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 TAA21983 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:45:52 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 132MrP-0001sz-00 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:46:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:46:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting Jacobsen Excision 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, 14 Jun 2000, Joshua Stratton wrote: > Well on page 106 there's this choice answer: > > 7 A. Anyone who might be offering for > > 8 sale a DVD on the internet, which we believe is > > 9 unauthorized. > > I guess we know why Reel.com went out of business. I suppose the MPAA > needs to write C&D letters to Amazon, Buy, Barnes & Nobel, etc. now. You know, conspiracy theorists would suggest that reel.com was shut down because it had an affiliation program going with opendvd.org... No idea if such an allegation has any merit whatsoever. I wouldn't put it past the MPAA, though. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:53:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03510 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:54:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:54:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting Jacobsen Excision 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 No, actually, had I read further it would be clear that they are discussing not DVDs at all but the content on DVDs. He does go on to say that it's ok to sell DVDs as long as you have to wait for a disc in the mail and such. 'Course, there are stores that sell software directly online w/o a box, and while dlin'g a DVD's content might be spectacularly uesless and time consuming, except for the 7 minute miracle, it could still be CSS encrypted data and skirt around 1201. I don't think they've gone so far as to say that the piece of plastic is a technological acess protection mechanism. On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Tim Neu wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > > Well on page 106 there's this choice answer: > > > > 7 A. Anyone who might be offering for > > > > 8 sale a DVD on the internet, which we believe is > > > > 9 unauthorized. > > > > I guess we know why Reel.com went out of business. I suppose the MPAA > > needs to write C&D letters to Amazon, Buy, Barnes & Nobel, etc. now. > > You know, conspiracy theorists would suggest that reel.com was shut down > because it had an affiliation program going with opendvd.org... > > No idea if such an allegation has any merit whatsoever. I wouldn't put > it past the MPAA, though. > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > ______ _ __ "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 > / <_/ / / < / (_ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 19:56:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA22279 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:56:50 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA22276 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:56:49 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:58:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:58:45 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting Jacobsen Excision 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 > You know, conspiracy theorists would suggest that reel.com was shut down > because it had an affiliation program going with opendvd.org... I scratched my head on this one. Time to setup affiliation w/ the others.. MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 20:10:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA22408 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:10:28 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA22405 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:10:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03585 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:11:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:11:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] mpaa depositions 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 Could one of the lawyers on the list answer this question for me: Can the various MPAA witnesses really hide their policy decisions behind attorney-client privilege? It seems to me that it's a little too expansive, but IANAL. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 21:45:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA22938 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:45:28 -0400 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA22935 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:45:26 -0400 Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:46:49 -0700 Received: from pchecker (pchecker.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.254.128]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 35-62055U1500L100S0V35) with SMTP id gov for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:46:51 -0700 Message-Id: <4.1.20000614173528.00a095f0@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: richard_hecker@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:51:08 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Richard A. Hecker" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs 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 >Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he >knows his own name. TRUE! Here are a few items I noticed in the Valenti deposition: >From page 51 14 THE WITNESS: All I'm saying, counselor, is 15 that, relying on my lawyer's interpretation, that 16 the Beta Max case was narrowly constructed. It 17 only dealt with over-the-air free television time 18 shifting. That's all you could copy, period. I wonder if he considers our constitutional rights are likewise "narrowly constructed"? >From page 108 13 Did you make -- again I presume you got 14 that information from someone who is more 15 technically aware. Is that right? 16 MR. COOPER: Assumes facts not in evidence, 17 you're asking the witness whether he recalls where 18 that information came from. 19 MR. GARBUS: Yes. 20 THE WITNESS: I'm sure it came from some 21 technical expert but I don't know who. Is there a way to find out who this expert is? What if he thinks Schumann is such an expert? If they pay their experts $325 per hour to come up with 7 minute miracle downloads, can we use these details to convince Kaplan they have exagerated their claims? Richard From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 22:52:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA23409 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:52:45 -0400 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 WAA23406 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:52:43 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 132PmB-00069L-00 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:53:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:53:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Deposition contradictions... In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000614173528.00a095f0@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> 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 In the deposition transcripts, there are a few direct inconsistancies. Jack Valanti never actually answers the question on page 102 line 22: 22 Q Have you ever seen a any documents that 23 break down -- internal MPAA documents that break 24 down how these loss figures are arrived at? In 25 other words, the sources of the loss? 103 1 MR. COOPER: That's a reference to the loss 2 figures set forth in exhibit 23? 3 MR. GARBUS: Yes. 4 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. However, in the Kenneth A. Jacobsen Deposition, he states: 18 Q. When you say cost the industry 19 $2.5 billion, what do you mean? 20 A. That is the estimate in lost revenues 21 that we make from unauthorized sales of our 22 audiovisual product. 23 Q. Who makes that estimate? 24 A. It is made, I would have to say, by 25 Mr. Valenti based on information that he INTERIM COURT REPORTING 266 1 Jacobsen 2 receives. It's obvious that other deposed individuals give Mr. Valenti an awefull lot of credit, for someone who knows nothing about DVD burners, the DVD CCA, the DMCA, Fair use, or nearly anything else for that matter. If, as alleged in Jacobsen's deposition, Jack "receives... information [on unauthorized sales of their audio visual product]", then Jack is obviously not telling the whole truth in his deposition. (as he claims he does not recall how these piracy figures were "arrived at") =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:38:34 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:43:58 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DB5@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:43:58 -0400 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 An interesting point from Jacobson (part 2). Notice particularly the confidential lines at the end. 18 Q. Do you find that in all the above 19 formats; VCD, videocassette and DVD? 20 A. I'm trying to remember if we have been 21 able to determine whether any DVDs have actually 22 been made from original released DVDs, and 23 don't know the answer. Clearly VCD's are used 24 and so are videocassettes. 25 I'm not sure that we can certify or INTERIM COURT REPORTING 235 1 Jacobsen 2 conclusively state that a legitimate DVD has been 3 used to create an unauthorized product. 4 Q. When you say "a legitimate DVD," you 5 mean a DVD that was manufactured and sold -- 6 A. That's correct. A DVD that was 7 manufactured by one of other members company and 8 legitimately placed into the marketplace. 9 Q. How would you tell if a copy DVD was 10 made from a legitimate DVD? 11 12 13 14 15 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 14 23:40:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA23814 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:40:52 -0400 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 XAA23811 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:40:51 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21874 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:42:47 -0400 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 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:42:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Bauer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Jack Valenti Deposition Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Comments on http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm P79 18 Q Do you agree that a person teaching in a 19 classroom such as professor Lessig can take three, 20 four, five minutes of a DVD and play it to his 21 class? 22 MR. COOPER: Assumes facts not in evidence. 23 It's an incomplete hypothetical. 24 THE WITNESS: If you mean can he de-encrypt 25 it the answer is no, but he can get it a DVD and 78 1 fast forward to the three or five minutes he wants 2 to play. But he still has to decrypt it to play it. P80 14 Q If a student wants to do a term paper, 15 let's say do a video presentation on the 16 holocaust -- do 20 minutes on the holocaust, and 17 wants to take two or three minutes from a DVD from 18 Schindler's List to put into that holocaust 19 presentation and she has to de-encrypt the DVD to 20 do that, is that illegal? 21 MR. COOPER: Asked and answered. It also 22 calls for legal conclusion. It's an incomplete 23 hypothetical. What is "incomplete" about all these questions? 24 BY MR. GARBUS: 25 Q Go ahead, sir. 81 1 A The student could do that by getting an 2 analog version of Schindler's List, because that's 3 not encrypted. Should have added "What is the movie was only available in DVD (encrypted) format?". Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 00:03:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA24083 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:03:50 -0400 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA24080 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:03:48 -0400 Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:05:11 -0700 Received: from pchecker (pchecker.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.254.128]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 35-62055U1500L100S0V35) with SMTP id gov for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:05:13 -0700 Message-Id: <4.1.20000614205522.00a09c90@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: richard_hecker@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:09:30 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Richard A. Hecker" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jack Valenti Deposition 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 >What is "incomplete" about all these questions? 24 BY MR. GARBUS: 25 Q Go ahead, sir. 81 1 A The student could do that by getting an 2 analog version of Schindler's List, because that's 3 not encrypted. >Should have added "What is the movie was only available >in DVD (encrypted) format?". This does seem disingenuous. He struggles over many of the questions and keeps saying he cannot remember. Yet in this answer he invites a digital-vs-analog comparison. Does it sound reasonable that the student with a DVD is restricted to the entire disk when they only need a segment? Also, does he feel the same way about an analog segment that has been taped from an HBO broadcast? Richard From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 00:06:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA24170 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:06:55 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA24166 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:06:54 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA24616 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:08:41 -0500 Message-ID: <39485527.9042C100@mninter.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:01:43 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jack Valenti Deposition 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 > What is "incomplete" about all these questions? Council for the plaintiffs was just registering objections to every question asked to have them on the record. This may come in useful when the defendants attempt to use the depositions to illustrate the deposed's (lack of cooperation/ignorance of the issues/evasiveness/...). This is a change in practice from earlier depositions where each question caused a 2 minute debate on the validity of the question, ending in Garbus stating "we'll get a ruling." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 00:29:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA24341 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:29:46 -0400 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 AAA24338 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:29:44 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-39.suba.com [206.69.121.231]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA14012 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:31:32 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:31:02 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bfd682$83639fa0$e77945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000614185050.J1040@linuxpower.org> 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 Rob wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > > > > > Five docs were provided today for the New York case. > > > > > > Jack Valenti Deposition, June 6, 2000 > > > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm (134K) > > > > > > > Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he > > knows his own name. > > Oh. My. God. > > I'm speechless. This is just incredible. > > Choice Valenti quotes: > > On encryption: "Any time that you circumvent an encryption you're > violating the law." > > On Fair Use: "It means that libraries or schoolteachers can play > movies in > their classrooms for educational purposes." > > On Lobbying: "I have one person that handles congress" > > > And my favorite: > > Q Do you know who Mr. Schumann is? > A Schumann? > > Q Yeah. > A What's his first name? > > Q Robert? > A Great composer. I love his music. > > > And *this* is the guy Congress goes to for a qualified opinion?? Not that I can't be as cynical as the next guy, but I think he's a perjuror. He doesn't know what the DVDCCA is, but he knows what Linux is (if only Garbus had asked him how he knows - does he read the paper?), and he knows what open source means. It - is - Horseshit. he doesn't know whether he can fast forward through DVD movies. If only Garbus had asked him how he *doesn't* know that - does he not have a DVD player in his home? Has he never used it? does he expect us to believe that he doesn't reach for the remote like every other red-blooded American boy and girl when the friggin ads come on? He's a weasel. You don't stay in his position for 34 years, talking to Congress, and not know how to avoid the question. And you don't say: I *can* remember that I don't speak publicly nine times a month, but I *can't* remember how many times I do speak, even though I admit its fewer. Weasel, weasel, WEASEL. steeplewrecker > > -- > Rob Warren > > (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 02:24:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA24883 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:24:25 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA24880 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:24:19 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW60029VN56DI@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:59:06 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs In-reply-to: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW60029WN56DI@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20000614174329.A25183@thud.reric.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > > > > Five docs were provided today for the New York case. > > > > > > > > Jack Valenti Deposition, June 6, 2000 > > > > > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm (134K) > > > > > > > > > > Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he > > > knows his own name. > > > > No kidding. Reading that ticks me off more than just about anything else > > in this case. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Valenti is when > > he says he has no idea who DVDCCA is (or any one of the other hundreds of > > "I don't know" answers), and somebody surfaces with evidence that he's > > lying. Does it impact the case in any way? > > Well, I did get a kick out of the Robert Schumann answer, even though he > didn't know who he was either. We really need to make a cheat sheet of > technical information for Garbus though. While I'm sure that it's not > really a big thing in court if he refers to Linux as an organization or a > dvd player as an OS it is a little annoying. Actually, I kind of like it this way. This way we will find out whether anyone of the plantiff's side actually knows anything about Linux as well. I mean the plantiffs/Mr.Gold should be asking "can you clarify what you mean by Linux playing a DVD? Do you mean an application running on Linux, or the operating system itself?" As long as they don't do this, we have a better estimation of the limits of their knowledge. (Actually the deeper answer to that question is -- "there is no necessary distinction between Linux or a Linux application for the purposes of this question".) On the other hand, we probably don't want Mr. Garbus to be caught with his pants down. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 02:29:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA24948 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:29:25 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA24945 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:29:24 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FW600IR7NE9LZ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:04:33 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs In-reply-to: <20000614185050.J1040@linuxpower.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FW600IR8NE9LZ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: ; from Joshua Stratton on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > > > Five docs were provided today for the New York case. > > > > > > Jack Valenti Deposition, June 6, 2000 > > > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm (134K) > > > > Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he > > knows his own name. > > Oh. My. God. > > I'm speechless. This is just incredible. > > Choice Valenti quotes: > > On encryption: "Any time that you circumvent an encryption you're violating the law." > > On Fair Use: "It means that libraries or schoolteachers can play movies in > their classrooms for educational purposes." > > On Lobbying: "I have one person that handles congress" Actually my favorite part was when Mr Garbus asked "Do you know how to *spell* D-E-C-S-S?" ... ok, that never happened, but as I was reading through the transcript I was wishing really really hard that he would ask that question. Well, ok, we've established this guy as being a complete idiot, and I don't see many more neurons on the plantiff's side other than from Robert Schumman (sp?). So it seems that breaking down Mr. Schumman's testimony/depositions/etc is probably of highest importance. The rest of them don't really add anything useful to their side from what I can see. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 03:00:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA25190 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:00:57 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA25187 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:00:56 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA06717 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:02:35 -0500 Message-ID: <39487D9E.D17C358@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 01:54:22 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs References: ; from Joshua Stratton on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400 <0FW600IR8NE9LZ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.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 I want to thank the members of the list and the defendant's team for the opportunity and the throughful debate that allowed me to construct a declaration on behalf of 2600. I hope that I did the facts justice. I had the privelege of addressing claims in Mr. Schumann's Second Declaration, including the seven minute miracle and college dorm networks. I don't think those elements in his declaration will be of primary concern for long, if I may say so. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 03:06:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA25357 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:06:57 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA25354 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:06:56 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA07022 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:08:43 -0500 Message-ID: <39487F08.D683A2D8@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:00:24 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs References: ; from Joshua Stratton on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400 <0FW600IR8NE9LZ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <39487D9E.D17C358@mninter.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 I did spell check it, despite what my last message may suggest. Cripes. Chris Moseng > > I want to thank the members of the list and the defendant's team for > the opportunity and the throughful debate that allowed me to construct > a declaration on behalf of 2600. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 03:43:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA25548 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:43:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@rdu25-21-242.nc.rr.com [24.25.21.242]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA25545 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:43:15 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (IDENT:jeffw@relay [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03631 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:42:25 -0400 Message-ID: <394888E0.F8B0F9C0@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:42:25 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs References: ; from Joshua Stratton on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400 <0FW600IR8NE9LZ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.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 Paul Hsieh wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > > > > Five docs were provided today for the New York case. > > > > > > > > Jack Valenti Deposition, June 6, 2000 > > > > > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm (134K) > > > > > > Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he > > > knows his own name. > > > > Oh. My. God. > > > > I'm speechless. This is just incredible. > > > > Choice Valenti quotes: > > > > On encryption: "Any time that you circumvent an encryption you're violating the law." > > > > On Fair Use: "It means that libraries or schoolteachers can play movies in > > their classrooms for educational purposes." > > > > On Lobbying: "I have one person that handles congress" > > Actually my favorite part was when Mr Garbus asked "Do you know how to *spell* > D-E-C-S-S?" ... ok, that never happened, but as I was reading through the > transcript I was wishing really really hard that he would ask that question. Well, > ok, we've established this guy as being a complete idiot, and I don't see many > more neurons on the plantiff's side other than from Robert Schumman (sp?). > > So it seems that breaking down Mr. Schumman's testimony/depositions/etc is > probably of highest importance. The rest of them don't really add anything useful > to their side from what I can see. > > -- > Paul Hsieh > qed@pobox.com Reminds me of a Simpsons: Chief Wiggum: You wouldn't know about a truck of stolen cigaretts, would you Fat Tony? Fat Tony: What's a truck? Chief Wiggum: Don't play dumb with me! I'm not going to rest until one of us is behind bars.....You! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 04:08:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA25801 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:08:05 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA25798 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:08:01 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA09686 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:09:47 -0500 Message-ID: <39488D1D.8072997D@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:00:29 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] The golden egg - Jacobsen I 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 There it is, in anti-aliased black on white: 12 Q. When we talk about policies or 13 positions, is there any place where MPAA or movie 14 studios had anything that looked like policies or 15 positions on any of these matters, other than in 16 the files of lawyers at Proskauer or Weil Gotshal, 17 making a distinction between lawyers that worked 18 for you or with you at the MPAA and lawyers who 19 work in these movie houses? 20 MR. COOPER: Do you understand the 21 question? 22 A. I don't understand the question. I 23 got lost. 24 Q. You got lost in the sophistication 25 of the question? INTERIM COURT REPORTING 139 1 Jacobsen 2 A. Yes. Actually, I did. Could we 3 read it back, please? ... 12 A. And the subject would be the general 13 rule of copying from one to another? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Not that I am aware of. The plaintiffs have no formal definition of piracy, so likely will not be able to produce an access license, so how can a home user be held in violation an access rights license? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 04:27:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA25984 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:27:46 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA25979 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:27:43 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 132V1t-0005H2-00; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:29:37 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 132V1v-0001ME-00; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:29:39 +0200 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:29:39 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting Jacobsen Excision Message-ID: <20000615102938.B4289@inka.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from mpav@purdue.edu on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:58:45PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:58:45PM -0500, matthew.r.pavlovich.1 wrote: > > You know, conspiracy theorists would suggest that reel.com was shut down > > because it had an affiliation program going with opendvd.org... > > I scratched my head on this one. Time to setup affiliation w/ the > others.. I never heard about reel.com shutting down and their web site still seems to be there and working. What's going on? Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 04:36:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA26131 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:36:57 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA26126 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:36:55 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA10882 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:38:41 -0500 Message-ID: <3948969E.A45B8157@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:41:02 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Freud would be proud - Jacobsen I 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 For a little livity: 20 Q. Do you know John Baumgarten from 21 Proskauer Rose? 22 A. I know -- I have never met 23 Mr. Baumgarten, but I do know generally that he 24 works for Proskauer Rose as a lawyer. 25 Q. And you know he made a court INTERIM COURT REPORTING 200 1 Jacobsen 2 appearance in this case? 3 A. I don't know. He made a court 4 appearance. I know that he has been part of the 5 defense team in this case. 6 MR. COOPER: Prosecution. 7 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 8 Prosecution. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 06:11:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA27256 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:11:29 -0400 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 GAA27253 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:11:27 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA07493 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3948AB07.B903736E@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:08:08 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs References: <000001bfd682$83639fa0$e77945ce@bugbug> 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 sparky wrote: > Not that I can't be as cynical as the next guy, but I think he's a perjuror. > He doesn't know what the DVDCCA is, but he knows what Linux is (if only > Garbus had asked him how he knows - does he read the paper?), and he knows > what open source means. It - is - Horseshit. he doesn't know whether he can > fast forward through DVD movies. If only Garbus had asked him how he > *doesn't* know that - does he not have a DVD player in his home? Has he > never used it? does he expect us to believe that he doesn't reach for the > remote like every other red-blooded American boy and girl when the friggin > ads come on? Niggling point here: the MPAA and its members do not regard movie trailers as "ads". To them, these are valuable assets. In fact, they'd like to get paid for showing them to you (when asked to provide trailers for a DVD movie database disc, they have been known to ask for recompense. For what everyone else thinks of as commercials). -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 06:40:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA27462 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:40:02 -0400 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 GAA27459 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:40:00 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA09114 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3948B1B8.C10B54C1@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:36:40 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting Jacobsen Excision References: <20000615102938.B4289@inka.de> 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: > I never heard about reel.com shutting down and their web site still seems to > be there and working. What's going on? > > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-12-2000/0001240304&EDATE= -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 07:59:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA28136 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:59:22 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA28133 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:59:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5FC1G602229 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:01:16 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:01:15 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <20000613141501.A8452@orange.fenimore.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, 13 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: >This raises and interesting point. The plaintiffs are effectively >arguing that different/derivative versions of a work with different image >quality are different works (they pose much more of a "threat" if >they are digital). Er, no? They are arguing that distributing different kinds of copies of a work pose differing degrees of danger. The work of course stays the same. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 08:00:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA28244 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:00:57 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA28241 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:00:56 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5FC2q402456 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:02:52 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:02:52 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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, 13 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: >Great. Incidentally, is mp3 a lossless or lossy codec? Extremely lossy. Lossless coding of sound produces 3 to 1 compression at best when the whole bandwidth of the original digital signal is utilized. MP3 and similar codecs get to over 12 to 1. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 08:27:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA28492 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:27:06 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA28489 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:27:05 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5FCT1c06735 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:29:01 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:29:00 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] New Declaration of Robert W. Schumann In-Reply-To: <20000614121851.A2203@inka.de> 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, 14 Jun 2000, Sham Gardner wrote: >However if the watermarking algorithm and data became known, it should be >possible for a recompressor to actively alter the image in such a way as to >remove the watermark before performing the actual compression. Of course. That is why you use more than one watermark and lobby for stricter laws. Also, I can envision modulation schemes which let you detect the presence of a watermark without knowing which bits the data actually comes from. I think it would be a very intensive excercise in sorta one-way functions and spectra. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 08:38:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA28654 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:38:32 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA28651 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:38:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 11552 invoked by uid 502); 15 Jun 2000 12:43:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:43:10 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs Message-ID: <20000615084310.K6819@linuxpower.org> References: <000001bfd682$83639fa0$e77945ce@bugbug> <3948AB07.B903736E@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <3948AB07.B903736E@cdpage.com>; from Dana Parker on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:08:08AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:08:08AM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > sparky wrote: > > > Not that I can't be as cynical as the next guy, but I think he's a perjuror. > > He doesn't know what the DVDCCA is, but he knows what Linux is (if only > > Garbus had asked him how he knows - does he read the paper?), and he knows > > what open source means. It - is - Horseshit. he doesn't know whether he can > > fast forward through DVD movies. If only Garbus had asked him how he > > *doesn't* know that - does he not have a DVD player in his home? Has he > > never used it? does he expect us to believe that he doesn't reach for the > > remote like every other red-blooded American boy and girl when the friggin > > ads come on? > > Niggling point here: the MPAA and its members do not regard movie trailers as > "ads". To them, these are valuable assets. In fact, they'd like to get paid for > showing them to you (when asked to provide trailers for a DVD movie database > disc, they have been known to ask for recompense. For what everyone else thinks > of as commercials). I think a company should pay me for submitting my resume to them. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 09:57:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA29427 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:57:23 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA29424 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:57:22 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA02940 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:59:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:59:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: DVD discussion Subject: [dvd-discuss] I also 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 also would like to thank the list and especially Sparky for help in observations to debunk Schumann's claims, about which I was given the opportunity to write a declaration. Oh, and thank you particularly to the author of the "DVD->DiVX"=="Fresh-squeezed OJ->FCOJ" comparison, which I blatantly stole. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 10:23:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29733 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:23:05 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA29730 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:23:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:24:25 PDT Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:24:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot 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 Valenti certainly comes across as a big fat clueless idiot, at best, or worse, an evasive liar. I cannot believe someone could forget how many times they've testified before Congress. I cannot believe that someone who speaks regularly about DVD piracy would be unaware of the DVD Copy Control Association's **existance**, especially when Valenti co-signed a letter with them, as Garbus pointed out. I cannot believe that this man would not be aware of the DVD CCA's related lawsuit. The number of time that Valenti answers "I don't know" or "I can't recall" would make Ronald Reagan seem like a memory champ. Garbus did score some points anyway: 5 Q When piracy flourishes. If you see in 6 the middle of the paragraph you say, "Piracy is a 7 $2 billion a year worldwide problem and growing?" 8 A Uh-huh. 9 Q Can you tell me if you have any 10 information about whether one nickel of that 11 piracy loss relates to DECSS? 12 A I don't know. 13 Q Has anyone at the MPAA to your knowledge 14 determined whether there's been a nickel loss due 15 to -- or any loss, a penny loss, due to DECSS? 16 MR. COOPER: [...] 20 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 10:34:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29921 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:34:24 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA29918 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:34:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 12315 invoked by uid 502); 15 Jun 2000 14:39:04 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:39:04 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:24:25AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:24:25AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Valenti certainly comes across as a big fat clueless idiot, at best, or > worse, an evasive liar. My guess is that he's just a political hack. His people tell him what to say; he doesn't make his money for actually knowing things himself. After all, his entire industry is built on similar principles. > I cannot believe someone could forget how many times they've testified > before Congress. I cannot believe that someone who speaks regularly > about DVD piracy would be unaware of the DVD Copy Control Association's > **existance**, especially when Valenti co-signed a letter with them, as > Garbus pointed out. I cannot believe that this man would not be aware > of the DVD CCA's related lawsuit. The question is: if Valenti was being evasive, why? He's not being prosecuted. He only has to gain from appearing knowledgable about this issue; it isn't like he's incriminating himself. It makes no sense for him to play possum and to keep parroting "Circumventing encryption is evil! EVVIIILLLL!!!" over and over again, if he actually had a clue. At the risk of sounding apologetic about the guy, folks, keep in mind that according to the transcript the guy was sick with a 102 degree fever. At his age, that's not really a joking matter. It's possible his mind could have been seriously mucked up that day as a result. Perhaps the MPAA needs a younger and healthier mouthpiece. Or at least a better script. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 12:02:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA30487 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:02:29 -0400 Received: from dial249.roadrunner.com (sf-du249.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.249]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA30484 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:02:26 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial249.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00652 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:04:34 -0600 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:04:33 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000615100433.A489@localhost> References: <20000613141501.A8452@orange.fenimore.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 03:01:15PM +0300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 03:01:15PM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > >This raises and interesting point. The plaintiffs are effectively > >arguing that different/derivative versions of a work with different image > >quality are different works (they pose much more of a "threat" if > >they are digital). > > Er, no? They are arguing that distributing different kinds of copies of a > work pose differing degrees of danger. The work of course stays the same. There are two things here: 1. Copies, tangible 2. Works, incorporeal, information. The MPAA, though Valenti, have argued that if the _work_ is digital, then it represents a great threat to their revenue. In deposition, Schumann mentions tape (presumably mammoth, et al.) as a way of storing a digital work. The P's understand that it isn't the _copy_. The thing you are calling "kind of copy" is the work. The works differ. On the one hand, they offer a digital derivate-work of the master as presenting a significantly greater piracy threat than an analog encoded derivative-work of the master version. Simply: the works differ, and the claim of great potential harm from nearly-zero generational loss would suggest more than a minor variation between the works. On the other hand, they tell people that works on VCR can substitute for works on DVD, suggesting that the two works are essentially the same. So which do the MPAA think it is? Are the versions of the work essentially the same, or not? Or is it more of the White Queen for us? Every _other_ day, you know, and to-day is never _another_ day. Note: I'm not arguing that the works have to be _identical_, I'm trying to point out that in one context they insist that the works have significant variations, and in another, only negligible variations. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 12:07:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA30610 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:07:34 -0400 Received: from dial249.roadrunner.com (sf-du249.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.249]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA30607 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:07:27 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial249.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00658 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:09:40 -0600 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:09:40 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615100940.B489@localhost> References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:24:25AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:24:25AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Valenti certainly comes across as a big fat clueless idiot, at best, or > worse, an evasive liar. > > I cannot believe someone could forget how many times they've testified > before Congress. I cannot believe that someone who speaks regularly > about DVD piracy would be unaware of the DVD Copy Control Association's > **existance**, especially when Valenti co-signed a letter with them, as > Garbus pointed out. I cannot believe that this man would not be aware > of the DVD CCA's related lawsuit. I assume telephone logs and travel records would settle this one. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 12:09:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA30730 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:09:45 -0400 Received: from dial249.roadrunner.com (sf-du249.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.249]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA30726 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:09:42 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial249.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00666 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:11:59 -0600 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:11:58 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615101158.C489@localhost> References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:04AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:04AM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:24:25AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Valenti certainly comes across as a big fat clueless idiot, at best, or > > worse, an evasive liar. > > My guess is that he's just a political hack. His people tell him what > to say; he doesn't make his money for actually knowing things himself. > > After all, his entire industry is built on similar principles. > > > > I cannot believe someone could forget how many times they've testified > > before Congress. I cannot believe that someone who speaks regularly > > about DVD piracy would be unaware of the DVD Copy Control Association's > > **existance**, especially when Valenti co-signed a letter with them, as > > Garbus pointed out. I cannot believe that this man would not be aware > > of the DVD CCA's related lawsuit. > > The question is: if Valenti was being evasive, why? Tying? [ ... ] > At the risk of sounding apologetic about the guy, folks, keep in mind > that according to the transcript the guy was sick with a 102 degree fever. This seems very plausible. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 13:21:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA31226 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:21:55 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA31223 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:21:54 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:24:21 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C4F@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Declan McCullagh on Valenti deposition Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:24:19 -0700 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 Wired News reporter McCullagh on the Valenti deposition: http://www.wired.com/news_drop/palmpilot/story/0,1325,36995,00.html Some highlights that McCullagh picked: "If a student wants to do a term paper, let's say do a video presentation on the Holocaust ... and wants to take two or three minutes from a DVD from Schindler's List to put into that Holocaust presentation and she has to de-encrypt the DVD to do that, is that illegal?" asked 2600 attorney Martin Garbus. Valenti ducked the question. "The student could do that by getting an analog version of Schindler's List, because that's not encrypted," he said. Garbus asked: "If any system plays a DVD without a license from DVD CCA, that in your estimation is against the law?" Replied Valenti: "I believe it's a violation of the law. The law is very clear and very plain." (Doesn't this essentially admit to an illegal tying between the MPAA and the DVDCCA?) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 13:25:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA31374 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:25:35 -0400 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 NAA31371 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:25:34 -0400 Received: from ip143.bedford8.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.78.143]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 132dQQ-00045q-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:27:31 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:21:38 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20000615101158.C489@localhost> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 NAA31372 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:11:58 -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: >On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:04AM -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:24:25AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: >> > Valenti certainly comes across as a big fat clueless idiot, at best, or >> > worse, an evasive liar. >> >> My guess is that he's just a political hack. His people tell him what >> to say; he doesn't make his money for actually knowing things himself. >> >> After all, his entire industry is built on similar principles. >> >> >> > I cannot believe someone could forget how many times they've testified >> > before Congress. I cannot believe that someone who speaks regularly >> > about DVD piracy would be unaware of the DVD Copy Control Association's >> > **existance**, especially when Valenti co-signed a letter with them, as >> > Garbus pointed out. I cannot believe that this man would not be aware >> > of the DVD CCA's related lawsuit. >> >> The question is: if Valenti was being evasive, why? > >Tying? > >[ ... ] >> At the risk of sounding apologetic about the guy, folks, keep in mind >> that according to the transcript the guy was sick with a 102 degree fever. > >This seems very plausible. First, on behalf of dvd-discuss, I'd like to wish Mr. Valenti a speedy recovery. It's unsettling to observe a long-time political figure stumbling around simple questions like Vinnie the Chin stumbles around Greenwich Village in his PJs. But, like the Chin, Valenti is ultimately a loyal soldier. He's just in the wrong army. Valenti considers his great accomplishment to be saving the movies from censorship with the fig leaf of ratings. This was no small feat. That ratings also assure investors that they will get what they pay for (and not something else) is frosting on the cake. It's to be expected that Valenti sees all unencryption as illegal. And he repeats this leitmotif like a parrot. But the rest of his answers are just phony pajamas. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 13:41:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA31664 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:41:49 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA31661 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:41:48 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:44:13 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C50@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:44:10 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Sampo A Syreeni [mailto:ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 5:01 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl > > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > >This raises and interesting point. The plaintiffs are effectively > >arguing that different/derivative versions of a work with > different image > >quality are different works (they pose much more of a "threat" if > >they are digital). > > Er, no? They are arguing that distributing different kinds of > copies of a > work pose differing degrees of danger. The work of course > stays the same. > Actually they are arguing that different access conditions are attached to the different kinds of copies being distributed: You can't copy (for fair use purposes) 2 minutes out of Schindler's List from a DVD because of the DMCA, but you -can- copy those same 2 minutes from a VHS copy. This is a clear assertion of different rights to the -same- work based solely upon the medium in which it has been fixed. Has anything like this ever been asserted before digital media came onto the scene? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 13:47:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA31821 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:47:33 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA31818 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:47:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 13304 invoked by uid 502); 15 Jun 2000 17:52:13 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:52:13 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615135213.O6819@linuxpower.org> References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from Ron Gustavson on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:21:38PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:21:38PM -0400, Ron Gustavson wrote: > > First, on behalf of dvd-discuss, I'd like to wish Mr. Valenti a speedy recovery. As would I. > It's unsettling to observe a long-time political figure stumbling around simple > questions like Vinnie the Chin stumbles around Greenwich Village in his PJs. > > But, like the Chin, Valenti is ultimately a loyal soldier. He's just in the wrong army. > > Valenti considers his great accomplishment to be saving the movies from > censorship with the fig leaf of ratings. This was no small feat. That ratings also > assure investors that they will get what they pay for (and not something else) is > frosting on the cake. Also keep in mind why the MPAA was formed - to promote American film to the world audience in the aftermath of World War II, to essentially rebuild the American film industry. Most of the time since, Valenti has been at the helm; in that period the American film industry has (for all rights and purposes) become the World Film Industry. This too is no small feat. > It's to be expected that Valenti sees all unencryption as illegal. And he repeats > this leitmotif like a parrot. But the rest of his answers are just phony pajamas. I strongly doubt Valenti knows much about what encryption *is*. Even taking into account illness and possibly failing memory, the portrait of a man out of his time is very, very clear in that deposition. The world has changed so dramatically in the last two decades. Valenti seems to have problems realizing that this is the year 2000, not 1965. Then again, I can't help but wonder how well I'll cope with 2040. Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 13:56:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA31958 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:56:35 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA31955 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:56:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 13389 invoked by uid 502); 15 Jun 2000 18:01:12 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:01:12 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Declan McCullagh on Valenti deposition Message-ID: <20000615140112.P6819@linuxpower.org> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C4F@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C4F@mail2.onetouch.com>; from Richard Hartman on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:24:19AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:24:19AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > Garbus asked: "If any system plays a DVD without a license from DVD CCA, > that in your estimation is against the law?" > Replied Valenti: "I believe it's a violation of the law. The law is very > clear and very plain." > > (Doesn't this essentially admit to an illegal tying between the MPAA and the > DVDCCA?) This last highlight is *real* interesting. Valenti is essentially claiming that "authorization" happens on the player level rather than on transfer of ownership of the DVD disc itself. Of course, he probably doesn't realize that this is what he is saying. I wonder how he could reconcile the fact that the DVDCCA (of which, he claims, he is completely ignorant) is not the copyright owner of the materials, and such is unable to grant authorization. I'd like to see the published (as of October 1999) statement communicating this arrangement with the DVD disc owner. For the record: it is my *assumption* that such a statement would have to be communicated in order to be enforced, because the alternative is ridiculous. Does anyone have thoughts on how this could be verified? Any thoughts, attorneys? Another question.. we've been arguing over who gets to give authorization. *How* does one give authorization? Surely, if a copyright owner has given a user authorization to access the material, this authorization has to be communicated to the user at some level. What exactly qualifies as "giving authorization?" Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:02:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA32160 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:02:39 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA32156 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:02:38 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:05:03 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C51@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:04:53 -0700 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 Paul -- you are saying that "the work" is the combination of both the content (for lack of a better term given that you have appropriated "the work") -and- the medium into which it has been fixed, so that the DVD edition of Shindler's List is a different work than the VHS edition? I thought that the copyright act was written with some language such that a distinction was made between "the work" (insubstantial) and "a copy" ("the work" fixed in a medium). Thus, "Shindler's List" is "the work" which may be found fixed into any number of different mediums (DVD, VHS, 70mm film, ...), each of which is termed "a copy". Yeah, here it is ... from 17 US 101 (Definitions) ''Audiovisual works'' are works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines, or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the works are embodied. ... A work is ''created'' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work. ... ''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed. ... 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. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is ''fixed'' for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission. So ... "Shindler's List" is an "audiovisual work" which was "created" when the final cut came out of the editing room. All VHS -and- DVD editions are merely "copies" of the -same- "audiovisual work" given the terms defined here. Now, is it reasonable to assert different rights to the -same- work based upon the medium in to which a given copy has been fixed? Valenti did just that in his deposition. I guess this could be restated to ask if the copyright act protects the rights to the work as a whole, or to the different types of copies separately? Is this an argument worth pursuing? Would whoever is in contact with the laywers please forward this to them for consideration? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 9:05 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 03:01:15PM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > >This raises and interesting point. The plaintiffs are effectively > > >arguing that different/derivative versions of a work with > different image > > >quality are different works (they pose much more of a "threat" if > > >they are digital). > > > > Er, no? They are arguing that distributing different kinds > of copies of a > > work pose differing degrees of danger. The work of course > stays the same. > > There are two things here: > 1. Copies, tangible > 2. Works, incorporeal, information. > > The MPAA, though Valenti, have argued that if the _work_ is > digital, then > it represents a great threat to their revenue. In deposition, > Schumann > mentions tape (presumably mammoth, et al.) as a way of > storing a digital > work. The P's understand that it isn't the _copy_. The thing > you are calling > "kind of copy" is the work. The works differ. > > On the one hand, they offer a digital derivate-work of the master as > presenting a significantly greater piracy threat than an analog > encoded derivative-work of the master version. Simply: the > works differ, > and the claim of great potential harm from nearly-zero > generational loss > would suggest more than a minor variation between the works. > > On the other hand, they tell people that works on VCR can > substitute for > works on DVD, suggesting that the two works are essentially the same. > > So which do the MPAA think it is? Are the versions of the > work essentially > the same, or not? Or is it more of the White Queen for us? > Every _other_ > day, you know, and to-day is never _another_ day. > > Note: I'm not arguing that the works have to be _identical_, > I'm trying to > point out that in one context they insist that the works have > significant variations, and in another, only negligible variations. > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:02:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA32170 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:02:56 -0400 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 OAA32167 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:02:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA03475 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:04:50 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:04:50 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > > >Great. Incidentally, is mp3 a lossless or lossy codec? > > Extremely lossy. Lossless coding of sound produces 3 to 1 compression at > best when the whole bandwidth of the original digital signal is > utilized. MP3 and similar codecs get to over 12 to 1. What degree of compression are we talking about in order to realize Schumann's 7MM? sparky > > Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:05:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA32298 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:05:29 -0400 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 OAA32295 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:05:28 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA03568 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:07:24 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:07:23 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs In-Reply-To: <20000615084310.K6819@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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:08:08AM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > > sparky wrote: > > > > > Not that I can't be as cynical as the next guy, but I think he's a perjuror. > > > He doesn't know what the DVDCCA is, but he knows what Linux is (if only > > > Garbus had asked him how he knows - does he read the paper?), and he knows > > > what open source means. It - is - Horseshit. he doesn't know whether he can > > > fast forward through DVD movies. If only Garbus had asked him how he > > > *doesn't* know that - does he not have a DVD player in his home? Has he > > > never used it? does he expect us to believe that he doesn't reach for the > > > remote like every other red-blooded American boy and girl when the friggin > > > ads come on? > > > > Niggling point here: the MPAA and its members do not regard movie trailers as > > "ads". To them, these are valuable assets. In fact, they'd like to get paid for > > showing them to you (when asked to provide trailers for a DVD movie database > > disc, they have been known to ask for recompense. For what everyone else thinks > > of as commercials). > > I think a company should pay me for submitting my resume to them. I think a company should hire me for submitting my resume to them. sp > > -- > Rob Warren > > (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:19:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA32422 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:19:25 -0400 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 OAA32418 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:19:24 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA06815 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39491D5D.7F2904D1@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:15:58 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C50@mail2.onetouch.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 Richard Hartman wrote: > Actually they are arguing that different access conditions > are attached to the different kinds of copies being distributed: > > You can't copy (for fair use purposes) 2 minutes out of Schindler's > List from a DVD because of the DMCA, but you -can- copy those same > 2 minutes from a VHS copy. This is a clear assertion of different > rights to the -same- work based solely upon the medium in which it > has been fixed. > > Has anything like this ever been asserted before digital media > came onto the scene? > Aren't you forgetting about Macrovision on VHS? -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:23:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA32611 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:23:02 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA32608 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:23:00 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA01251 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:24:48 -0500 Message-ID: <39491FBC.63C3F76@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:26:04 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 > What degree of compression are we talking about in order to realize > Schumann's 7MM? Without doing the math, I have significant doubts that the compressed movie would be intelligble or recognizeable as having come from a DVD rather than a stream of random MPEG-2 data or deep space radiation (if there are any encoders that would perform such a compression). There are several ways to compress the information, though, not just through decreasing the video bitrate. For instance, a person could take out 21 of every 24 frames per second and possibly accomplish the same thing. Extrapolating sloppily from my trials, an estimate of file size in 7 minutes would be less than a GB, or between 1/7 and 1/10 the size of the original The Matrix files. So, you can have a pristine copy that runs at 3 frames per second, for example. Of course, I would be the first one to argue that something like that might have a fair use defense because it is artistic, in its way. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:28:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00330 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:28:27 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA00327 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:28:25 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c06-152.015.popsite.net [64.24.77.152]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA00389 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000615112400.00ab9140@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:28:13 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is 7 minutes really a miracle? 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 It could be, and I make no claims to having adequate technical expertise; but having just read the story below, I wonder how this concept is even feasible if download times would be as long as people have suggested. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2080146.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.ni Net film firm taps Gnutella for video sales By Gwendolyn Mariano Staff Writer, CNET News.com June 14, 2000, 5:35 p.m. PT An online movie distributor this week said it will try to sell videos using Gnutella's file-sharing software, issuing a challenge not only for itself, but for the company that has promised to protect files from piracy on the notoriously insecure network: Microsoft. Pennsylvania-based SightSound.com today said it plans to enlist Gnutella for commercial purposes--software that most copyright holders view as a dangerous tool for illegal copying. The experiment will carry SightSound's full-length feature movie content into the belly of the piracy beast under the protection of Microsoft's digital rights management (DRM) system. The move puts up for grabs on the Gnutella network a dozen encrypted movie files, for which SightSound has secured online distribution rights. Once people obtain the file, they are required to rent or purchase a license to view the movie. [....] -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:30:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00480 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:30:57 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA00477 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:30:55 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02264 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:32:41 -0500 Message-ID: <39492195.8AEB132C@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:33:57 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C51@mail2.onetouch.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 > Now, is it reasonable to assert different rights to the > -same- work based upon the medium in to which a given copy > has been fixed? Valenti did just that in his deposition. Well, unfortunatly we're arguing under the DMCA, which says yes. The DMCA gives copyright holders that carrot as long as they use technological means to protect their copyrighted work. I can't wait until book publishers start distributing books with a dainty lock on the front, with the key in an envelope upon which is printed your access rights license. Maybe they'll even make you buy the key separately, like from a bin at the front counter, and one of the stipulations is that you agree to buy a new key for each new book. Hey, if you want to make fair use, you'll just have to find a copy of that book without the lock on it! And if you violate the license, even for lawful reasons, we reserve the right to come by and change all the locks. Heck, if *someone else* violates the license, we may be forced to change all the locks. This is essentially Valenti's position. Never mind that they may never have made a non-access-protected book, making fair use impossible. The plaintiffs are going to have their CSS handed to them on a platter. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:31:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00513 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:31:31 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA00506 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:31:28 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id OAA02625 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:35:32 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:29:01 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:28:35 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id OAA00511 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu artistic. hmmm >>> Chris Moseng 06/15/00 02:26PM >>> > What degree of compression are we talking about in order to realize > Schumann's 7MM? Without doing the math, I have significant doubts that the compressed movie would be intelligble or recognizeable as having come from a DVD rather than a stream of random MPEG-2 data or deep space radiation (if there are any encoders that would perform such a compression). There are several ways to compress the information, though, not just through decreasing the video bitrate. For instance, a person could take out 21 of every 24 frames per second and possibly accomplish the same thing. Extrapolating sloppily from my trials, an estimate of file size in 7 minutes would be less than a GB, or between 1/7 and 1/10 the size of the original The Matrix files. So, you can have a pristine copy that runs at 3 frames per second, for example. Of course, I would be the first one to argue that something like that might have a fair use defense because it is artistic, in its way. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:32:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00611 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:32:05 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA00600 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:32:04 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05863 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:34:02 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39491468.81B0E1F8@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:37:44 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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: > Richard Hartman wrote: >> You can't copy (for fair use purposes) 2 minutes out of Schindler's >> List from a DVD because of the DMCA, but you -can- copy those same >> 2 minutes from a VHS copy. ... > > Aren't you forgetting about Macrovision on VHS? This is an important point because the DMCA makes it illegal to sell a VCR that does not respect Macrovision. In other words, Mr. Valenti has NOT identified a legal way for that student to exercise fair use rights. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:48:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00815 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:48:37 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA00811 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:48:33 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA04756 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:50:05 -0500 Message-ID: <394925A5.70A3A4D5@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:51:17 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is 7 minutes really a miracle? References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000615112400.00ab9140@cyberpass.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 Note they do not say that the movie is a DVD-quality MPEG-2 file, just that it's a movie. It's probably a highly-compressed, stereo-audio only bare-bones VCD-quality file that will still have modem users waiting overnight to see their movie. DVDs are carefully quality controlled with variable bitrate compression, 5.1 discrete channels of sound, and customized navitagional menus and featurettes. Frankly, barring fratctal or quantum technology, I do not see fitting the amount of information required in a feature-length movie at a quality worth watching in less than a GB. That still takes a long time to download over a 56kbps modem. This service is aimed at broadband users who, perhaps, don't have DVD players and aren't doing anything else with their incoming bandwidth. "James S. Tyre" wrote: > > It could be, and I make no claims to having adequate technical > expertise; but having just read the story below, I wonder how this > concept is even feasible if download times would be as long as people > have suggested. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:52:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00931 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:52:07 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA00928 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:52:06 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:54:34 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C52@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:54:24 -0700 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 Macrovision on VHS and .... what is the second medium that was being treated differently? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Parker [mailto:danapark@cdpage.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 11:16 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl > > > Richard Hartman wrote: > > > Actually they are arguing that different access conditions > > are attached to the different kinds of copies being distributed: > > > > You can't copy (for fair use purposes) 2 minutes out of Schindler's > > List from a DVD because of the DMCA, but you -can- copy those same > > 2 minutes from a VHS copy. This is a clear assertion of different > > rights to the -same- work based solely upon the medium in which it > > has been fixed. > > > > Has anything like this ever been asserted before digital media > > came onto the scene? > > > > Aren't you forgetting about Macrovision on VHS? > > > > > -- > Dana J. Parker > http://www.cdpage.com > http://www.emediapro.net > http://www.dvdpro.net > mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:52:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00939 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:52:33 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA00936 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:52:31 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id OAA02664 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:56:54 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:50:23 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:49:55 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is 7 minutes really a miracle? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id OAA00937 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think I read somewhere that they were looking at files slightly bigger than could fit on a CD, but my memory may be faulty. >>> Chris Moseng 06/15/00 02:51PM >>> Note they do not say that the movie is a DVD-quality MPEG-2 file, just that it's a movie. It's probably a highly-compressed, stereo-audio only bare-bones VCD-quality file that will still have modem users waiting overnight to see their movie. DVDs are carefully quality controlled with variable bitrate compression, 5.1 discrete channels of sound, and customized navitagional menus and featurettes. Frankly, barring fratctal or quantum technology, I do not see fitting the amount of information required in a feature-length movie at a quality worth watching in less than a GB. That still takes a long time to download over a 56kbps modem. This service is aimed at broadband users who, perhaps, don't have DVD players and aren't doing anything else with their incoming bandwidth. "James S. Tyre" wrote: > > It could be, and I make no claims to having adequate technical > expertise; but having just read the story below, I wonder how this > concept is even feasible if download times would be as long as people > have suggested. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:54:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01015 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:54:01 -0400 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 OAA01012 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:53:59 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA05540 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:55:56 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:55:55 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C51@mail2.onetouch.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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: > > So ... "Shindler's List" is an "audiovisual work" which > was "created" when the final cut came out of the editing > room. All VHS -and- DVD editions are merely "copies" > of the -same- "audiovisual work" given the terms defined > here. > > Now, is it reasonable to assert different rights to the > -same- work based upon the medium in to which a given copy > has been fixed? Valenti did just that in his deposition. I think we'd better consider whether this is truly what plaintiffs are saying/will say, or if they will make the distinction based on the fact that encryption exists on the digital copies, and not on the videotapes. Valenti states precisely this quality as the reason a student can excise a portion of a movie from videotape, I think. sparky > > I guess this could be restated to ask if the copyright act > protects the rights to the work as a whole, or to the > different types of copies separately? > > Is this an argument worth pursuing? > > Would whoever is in contact with the laywers please forward > this to them for consideration? > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 9:05 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 03:01:15PM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > > > >This raises and interesting point. The plaintiffs are effectively > > > >arguing that different/derivative versions of a work with > > different image > > > >quality are different works (they pose much more of a "threat" if > > > >they are digital). > > > > > > Er, no? They are arguing that distributing different kinds > > of copies of a > > > work pose differing degrees of danger. The work of course > > stays the same. > > > > There are two things here: > > 1. Copies, tangible > > 2. Works, incorporeal, information. > > > > The MPAA, though Valenti, have argued that if the _work_ is > > digital, then > > it represents a great threat to their revenue. In deposition, > > Schumann > > mentions tape (presumably mammoth, et al.) as a way of > > storing a digital > > work. The P's understand that it isn't the _copy_. The thing > > you are calling > > "kind of copy" is the work. The works differ. > > > > On the one hand, they offer a digital derivate-work of the master as > > presenting a significantly greater piracy threat than an analog > > encoded derivative-work of the master version. Simply: the > > works differ, > > and the claim of great potential harm from nearly-zero > > generational loss > > would suggest more than a minor variation between the works. > > > > On the other hand, they tell people that works on VCR can > > substitute for > > works on DVD, suggesting that the two works are essentially the same. > > > > So which do the MPAA think it is? Are the versions of the > > work essentially > > the same, or not? Or is it more of the White Queen for us? > > Every _other_ > > day, you know, and to-day is never _another_ day. > > > > Note: I'm not arguing that the works have to be _identical_, > > I'm trying to > > point out that in one context they insist that the works have > > significant variations, and in another, only negligible variations. > > > > > > Paul Fenimore > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 14:58:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01067 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:58:31 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA01064 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:58:31 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA11620 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:00:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:00:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is 7 minutes really a miracle? 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 06/15/00 at 14:49, 'twas brillig and Edward Hernstadt scrobe: > > I think I read somewhere that they were looking at files slightly bigger than could fit on a CD, but my memory may be faulty. In the Schumann declaration, he talks about compressing a 5GB DVD into 1.2GB with DiVX, and the possibility of burning the result onto two CDs instead of (or after) downloading it. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 15:06:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01199 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:06:01 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA01195 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:05:55 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c06-152.015.popsite.net [64.24.77.152]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA04621 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000615120325.00ae3270@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:05:40 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is 7 minutes really a miracle? In-Reply-To: <394925A5.70A3A4D5@mninter.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000615112400.00ab9140@cyberpass.net> 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 01:51 PM 6/15/2000 -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: >Note they do not say that the movie is a DVD-quality MPEG-2 file, just >that it's a movie. > >It's probably a highly-compressed, stereo-audio only bare-bones >VCD-quality file that will still have modem users waiting overnight to >see their movie. DVDs are carefully quality controlled with variable >bitrate compression, 5.1 discrete channels of sound, and customized >navitagional menus and featurettes. > >Frankly, barring fratctal or quantum technology, I do not see fitting >the amount of information required in a feature-length movie at a >quality worth watching in less than a GB. Yeah, you're probably right, thanks. A quick look at sightsound shows, for example, a downloadable 90 minute movie with a file size of only 194 Mb. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 15:11:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01358 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:11:15 -0400 Received: from cyclesoftware.com (www.cyclesoftware.com [209.46.107.178]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA01354 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:10:55 -0400 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000496162 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:12:16 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: sbryan@cxc.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000615112400.00ab9140@cyberpass.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000615112400.00ab9140@cyberpass.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:12:14 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is 7 minutes really a miracle? 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 >It could be, and I make no claims to having adequate technical >expertise; but having just read the story below, I wonder how this >concept is even feasible if download times would be as long as >people have suggested. > >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2080146.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.ni > >Net film firm taps Gnutella for video sales... I'm not excited at the prospect of acting like a shill for MPAA or RIAA but there seems to be an almost perverse desire to misunderstand what was being claimed for download speed. I'm pretty certain the example was supposed to be on a campus wide network rather than across an arbitrary section of the internet. Aren't there any colleges with 100baseT networks? Are we that far from seeing gigbit campus networks? I know that networks saturate long before they reach their nominal speed but just for back of the envelope calculation consider a gigabit ethernet connection to another machine. Round up to one gigabit per second so you would get a gigabyte in less than 10 seconds. I don't think any of my DVD's contain more than 10 gigabytes so that would imply a transfer time on the order of 100 seconds. So if you have the network to yourself and you get 50% efficiency that would be about 200 seconds or just over 3 minutes. I doubt that many DVD-ROM drives could maintain this data rate and if it could there is a significant question if the tcp/ip stack in the pair of machines could maintain such a blistering pace. Even with all those issues we are looking at widespread deployment of gigabit ethernets and the reality that DVD's are not an impossible amount of data. The article mentioned above refers to mpeg-4 files that are significantly smaller (about 300 to 400 megabytes) and transfer across megabit connections. So a megabyte about every 10 seconds which implies 3000 to 4000 seconds. 3600 seconds is an hour so it is conceivable that a movie could be transferred in something like an hour using presently deployed and economically feasible technology. Heck, while I'm playing devil's advocate it might be worth noting that a "clean" copy of a video (like one might get from a decompressed MPEG-2 obtained with DeCSS) compresses much better than an analog capture and hence might produce a much more useful mpeg-4 version. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 15:22:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01829 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:22:59 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA01825 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:22:58 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13597 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:24:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39492056.DDEE2A00@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:28:39 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 Edward Hernstadt writes: > There are several ways to compress the information, though, > not just through decreasing the video bitrate. For instance, a > person could take out 21 of every 24 frames per second and > possibly accomplish the same thing. Ah, but you are forgetting one important thing. The main reason why MPEG works is that a motion picture consists of frame after frame of nearly identical material. Because the image only changes slightly from frame to frame, my understand is that the MPEG encoding scheme -- and this is the limit of my knowledge of the internals of MPEG -- stores an occasional full frame, and lots of data that describe the differences between this frame and the last frame. If you were to toss out 21 of 24 frames, you would be left with program content that changes much more significantly from frame to frame, and would require far more data per frame to represent the much larger differences between frames. So you would lose what you thought you were gaining. Can anyone with real knowledge of MPEG internals verify this? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 15:25:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01971 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:25:18 -0400 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 PAA01967 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:25:16 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 132fIH-0006iL-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:27:13 +0200 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:27:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <39491D5D.7F2904D1@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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Dana Parker wrote: > Richard Hartman wrote: > > > Actually they are arguing that different access conditions > > are attached to the different kinds of copies being distributed: > > > > You can't copy (for fair use purposes) 2 minutes out of Schindler's > > List from a DVD because of the DMCA, but you -can- copy those same > > 2 minutes from a VHS copy. This is a clear assertion of different > > rights to the -same- work based solely upon the medium in which it > > has been fixed. > > > > Has anything like this ever been asserted before digital media > > came onto the scene? > > > > Aren't you forgetting about Macrovision on VHS? > What was the legal status of Macrovision prior to the DMCA, I can't imagine it would be anywhre near is ironclad as it under the DMCA. So it would seem that they could argue that the DMCA creates a distinction of media, based on TPMs 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 Jun 15 15:32:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02153 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:32:15 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02150 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:32:14 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA12630 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:34:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:34:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is 7 minutes really a miracle? 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 06/15/00 at 14:12, 'twas brillig and steve bryan scrobe: > > I'm not excited at the prospect of acting like a shill for MPAA or > RIAA but there seems to be an almost perverse desire to misunderstand > what was being claimed for download speed. I'm pretty certain the > example was supposed to be on a campus wide network rather than > across an arbitrary section of the internet. Aren't there any > colleges with 100baseT networks? A few colleges (small ones all) may provide 100Mbps ethernet to their dorm rooms. Particularly for larger instutions the cost is prohibitive. Even Harvard uses 10Mbps to its dorms. > Are we that far from seeing gigbit > campus networks? Yes. ExpPENsive, baby. We use gigabit ethernet and FDDI for carrying the load between routers, but it's going to be a long time before you see gigabit-to-the-desktop, let alone to the dorm room. > I know that networks saturate long before they reach > their nominal speed but just for back of the envelope calculation > consider a gigabit ethernet connection to another machine. Round up > to one gigabit per second so you would get a gigabyte in less than 10 > seconds. I don't think any of my DVD's contain more than 10 gigabytes > so that would imply a transfer time on the order of 100 seconds. So > if you have the network to yourself and you get 50% efficiency that > would be about 200 seconds or just over 3 minutes. I doubt that many > DVD-ROM drives could maintain this data rate and if it could there is > a significant question if the tcp/ip stack in the pair of machines > could maintain such a blistering pace. Not to mention the fact that current high-end disk technology (low-voltage differential SCSI in RAID arrays) has a maximum *sustained* transfer rate of 80 megabytes per second, and that's for several drives with data striping so you're not actually reading/writing all the data at once to one drive. Those ATA-33 and ATA-66 "ultra" drives you may have heard about for EIDE systems? Those numbers refer to theoretical burst-data rates, not sustained transfer, and reflect the presence of a large RAM cache on the drive controller. Once the drive head becomes the bottleneck, your transfer rate drops waay down; the best ata-66 drive claims to have broken the 30MB/s STR barrier, but that's in some dispute. Moreover, those figures are for sequential reads or writes where the head doesn't need to seek around the disk, which is essentially an artificial "ideal" situation. > Even with all those issues we are looking at widespread deployment of > gigabit ethernets and the reality that DVD's are not an impossible > amount of data. The article mentioned above refers to mpeg-4 files > that are significantly smaller (about 300 to 400 megabytes) and > transfer across megabit connections. So a megabyte about every 10 > seconds which implies 3000 to 4000 seconds. 3600 seconds is an hour > so it is conceivable that a movie could be transferred in something > like an hour using presently deployed and economically feasible > technology. Right, but that's not DVD-quality. Not even close. Remind me again why "Digital is different"? Oh, yeah, it's 'cause people will make perfect copies of their DVDs and pirate them on the internet... > Heck, while I'm playing devil's advocate it might be worth noting > that a "clean" copy of a video (like one might get from a > decompressed MPEG-2 obtained with DeCSS) compresses much better than > an analog capture and hence might produce a much more useful mpeg-4 > version. DeCSS doesn't decompress -- it only decrypts. You'll still be compressing from an already-compressed source. Your end product will almost certainly be less watchable than the VHS tape in the rental store. -- Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 15:36:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02302 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:36:20 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02299 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:36:19 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15675 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:38:18 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39492379.BA747A26@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:42:01 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is 7 minutes really a miracle? 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 bryan writes: > I'm not excited at the prospect of acting like a shill for MPAA or > RIAA but there seems to be an almost perverse desire to misunderstand > what was being claimed for download speed. I'm pretty certain the > example was supposed to be on a campus wide network rather than > across an arbitrary section of the internet. Aren't there any > colleges with 100baseT networks? Are we that far from seeing gigbit > campus networks? A good question. The answer comes from basic network design. In a largely uncontrolled environment -- and a student dorm is about as uncontrolled an environment as you can get, you need to build in safeguards against one student monopolizing the entire network bandwidth, for exactly the reasons we are discussing here. In our case, student dorm connections are provided with 10 Mb/Sec standard ethernet, and connect to data switches. Each data switch has a 100 Mb/Sec connection to a router. The routers are connected to each other with multiple FDDI connections, for a aggragate bandwidth far in excess of 100 Mb/Sec. That's our backbone. We could easily buy 100 Mb/Sec switches for the dorm closets, instead of 10 Mb/Sec switches. If we were to do so, however, then one student could consume the entire dorm network. This way, the most damage any one student can do is to consume 10% of the dorm network bandwidth. I believe that other universities use throttling at the switches and routers to accomplish essentially the same purpose ... slow down cowboy. So the answer is, even though universities are building multi-gigabit backbones, and creating high speed networks, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are opening big, fat pipes to each dorm room. There are compelling reasons not to do so. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 15:41:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02439 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:41:45 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02436 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:41:44 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:47:12 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DB6@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:47:02 -0400 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 By the way, did you all notice in one of the depositions that the PAL/NTSC/SEACAM differences in videotapes are considered region controls by the MPA? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 15:43:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02499 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:43:25 -0400 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 PAA02496 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:43:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA07665 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:45:16 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:45:16 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is 7 minutes really a miracle? 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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, steve bryan wrote: > >It could be, and I make no claims to having adequate technical > >expertise; but having just read the story below, I wonder how this > >concept is even feasible if download times would be as long as > >people have suggested. > > > >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2080146.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.ni > > > >Net film firm taps Gnutella for video sales... > > > I'm not excited at the prospect of acting like a shill for MPAA or > RIAA but there seems to be an almost perverse desire to misunderstand > what was being claimed for download speed. I'm pretty certain the > example was supposed to be on a campus wide network rather than > across an arbitrary section of the internet. Aren't there any > colleges with 100baseT networks? Are we that far from seeing gigbit > campus networks? I know that networks saturate long before they reach > their nominal speed but just for back of the envelope calculation > consider a gigabit ethernet connection to another machine. Round up > to one gigabit per second so you would get a gigabyte in less than 10 > seconds. I don't think any of my DVD's contain more than 10 gigabytes > so that would imply a transfer time on the order of 100 seconds. So > if you have the network to yourself and you get 50% efficiency that > would be about 200 seconds or just over 3 minutes. I doubt that many > DVD-ROM drives could maintain this data rate and if it could there is > a significant question if the tcp/ip stack in the pair of machines > could maintain such a blistering pace. > > Even with all those issues we are looking at widespread deployment of > gigabit ethernets and the reality that DVD's are not an impossible > amount of data. The article mentioned above refers to mpeg-4 files > that are significantly smaller (about 300 to 400 megabytes) and > transfer across megabit connections. So a megabyte about every 10 > seconds which implies 3000 to 4000 seconds. 3600 seconds is an hour > so it is conceivable that a movie could be transferred in something > like an hour using presently deployed and economically feasible > technology. basic responses to schumann/debbils advocati: -regardless of whether you can do it later, you can't do it now. alleged degree of potential piracy shown false. -even if you can do it later, what we're talking about then are advances of tech making DeCSS more useful in a piracy scenario. aside from the fact that this does not make DeCSS useful *only* for piracy, defendants can also play the advanced-tech game and pose: software player that plays encrypted DVD movies saved to hard drive? Completely blank DVD media? [aside, resp to Dana: just occured to me: maybe you won't get multiple layers of recordability on a DVD, but wouldn't that mean that you could still burn a movie to multiple disks?] Abstract, advanced-tech will make decryptors less necessary for piracy. -plaintiffs spin the importance of the college demographic, ignoring such things as: that this demog has always indulged in lots of "piracy", that they spend more money on media in addition to sharing more, that the networks they use are short-range, that these network connections really cost a lot more than $30 a month (think tuition and room and board at a college dorm, not cheap), etc etc Basically, you can look at the demog, statistically, in ways that make it seem really big, and ways that make it seem really small. sparky > > Heck, while I'm playing devil's advocate it might be worth noting > that a "clean" copy of a video (like one might get from a > decompressed MPEG-2 obtained with DeCSS) compresses much better than > an analog capture and hence might produce a much more useful mpeg-4 > version. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 15:43:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02507 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:43:43 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02504 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:43:41 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA12112 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:45:26 -0500 Message-ID: <39493276.F83EFD0D@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:45:58 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl References: <39492056.DDEE2A00@uic.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 > If you were to toss out 21 of 24 frames, you would be left > with program content that changes much more significantly > from frame to frame, and would require far more data per > frame to represent the much larger differences between > frames. I think you may be right, to a point. My understanding of MPEG-2, though is that keyframes can appear every 3, 5, 10, 15, etc. frames depending on the onscreen action. So if every frame is a keyframe, you're still getting rid of the inbetween data--a significant amount I would say. Not only that, but those would be the highest quality three frames per second you'd ever seen in your life. But I'll concede, and probably there is a magic number for each movie (I'd guess equal to the average number of keyframes/second across the whole movie), and approaching that number in frames per second would not improve filesize. Of course, you could always go way below it (10 seconds per frame, 1 minute per frame) and begin to see file size reduction improve again. It would look just like you were fast forwarding through it. Put it to "Flight of the Bumblebee" and you've got yourself your own comedic work. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 15:44:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02582 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:44:54 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02579 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:44:53 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA12304 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:46:41 -0500 Message-ID: <394932C0.9D03293E@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:47:12 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is 7 minutes really a miracle? References: <39492379.BA747A26@uic.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 This is generally what I claim in my declaration. I'm glad to hear support from another list member. > So the answer is, even though universities are building multi-gigabit > backbones, and creating high speed networks, that doesn't > necessarily mean that they are opening big, fat pipes to each dorm > room. There are compelling reasons not to do so. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 15:57:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02726 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:57:55 -0400 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 PAA02723 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:57:53 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA30364 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:59:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:59:48 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Declan McCullagh on Valenti deposition Message-ID: <20000615145948.A30299@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C4F@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C4F@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:24:19AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:24:19AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > Wired News reporter McCullagh on the Valenti deposition: > http://www.wired.com/news_drop/palmpilot/story/0,1325,36995,00.html Both Declan and somebody in one of the depositions posted yesterday made the same mistake: DIVX is not the same thing as DivX. DIVX is (was) the Circuit-City funded encrypted DVD format that worked by players calling a central office and billing users every time the watched a movie. They're now out of business. This one has little bearing one the case, though DIVX discs were based on the DVD format. DivX is a digital video compression format and corresponding codec (COding/DECoding program). This is the one that plaintiff's lawyers tout as being able to compress DVD data. I personally have serious doubts about the viability of any high-compression format, since image quality is almost guaranteed to go down significantly when you're trying to shrink sizes by factors of ten. But then, I haven't tried it, so maybe I should shut up. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 16:24:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03126 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:24:33 -0400 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 QAA03123 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:24:31 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA30437 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:26:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:26:29 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] On DivX Message-ID: <20000615152629.A30413@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 1.0.1us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The amusing Salon article on the DivX codec, http://www.salonmagazine.com/tech/feature/2000/05/31/divx/index.html has a number of amusing observations. First, it's buggy as hell. Second, the quality is awful. Third, and the part that really made me laugh, are the real-world anecdotes about download times: "After a while, I gave up on "The Matrix." I just wanted, longed in fact, to spend half a day-- which is what the DivX savvy told me to expect from my T1 line -- waiting for a movie to amble onto my computer. It apparently takes anywhere from two to 10 hours to download a DivX version of a film, but I was ready." Later, as he's complaining about how "half" the FTP servers he tries won't let him in, he says "According to Chris and other traders who were even less forthcoming, these difficulties are pretty common. "You have to wait in line," Chris says. "When people are attached to servers for five or six hours, it's tough to get in. It's not like MP3s." Kind of makes the MPAA's claims about DivX seem as hollow as their claims about the 7 minute miracle. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 16:27:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03253 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:27:43 -0400 Received: from cyclesoftware.com (www.cyclesoftware.com [209.46.107.178]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA03250 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:27:38 -0400 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000496353 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:29:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000615145948.A30299@thud.reric.net> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C4F@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000615145948.A30299@thud.reric.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:28:57 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Declan McCullagh on Valenti deposition 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 personally have serious doubts about the viability of any >high-compression format, since image quality is almost guaranteed to go >down significantly when you're trying to shrink sizes by factors of ten. >But then, I haven't tried it, so maybe I should shut up. But all of these are high-compression formats. MPEG-2 achieves about 100-1 compression. The thing about DiVX is that it is about another factor of 10 so I remain skeptical until I see it (which won't be very convenient since I stick with Mac). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 16:36:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03438 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:36:09 -0400 Received: from dial148.roadrunner.com (sf-du148.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA03435 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:36:05 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial148.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02784 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:38:18 -0600 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:38:17 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000615143816.A2692@localhost> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C51@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C51@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:04:53AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:04:53AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > Paul -- you are saying that "the work" is the combination > of both the content (for lack of a better term given that > you have appropriated "the work") -and- the medium into > which it has been fixed, so that the DVD edition of Shindler's > List is a different work than the VHS edition? I disagree. I am not saying that the "work" is mixed with the "copy". There is no necessary connection between the work and the particular medium that it is fixed in. "Being digital" is an attribute of the work, not of the copy per se. I think we would agree that for many purposes the works that appear on VHS and DVD only differ in minor ways. When discussing "fair use" the MPAA also takes this position. When discussing WIPO, 1201, etc., their claim is that digital works face significantly different threats of piracy than analog works. They are claiming that in at least one way, there is a significant difference between the two versions of the work. But when people point out that uses of the digital version are encumbered or prohibited, they pretend that those differences are irrelevant to the audience's legitimate interests in "fair use" (which from reading the depositions they seem to take as all non-infringing uses, which is wrong). People have suggested various ways in which the works might differ from the use stand point. Some of those suggestions are not fundamentally connected to the digital character of the work, but one -- notably high-quality copies -- is connected with the digital encoding. I think I can characterize their argument as, "lower quality speech is available for your fair use needs, use that instead." Regulations of the form of speech are, I believe, looked at with the same jaundiced eye as regulations of speech proper. If someone took the digital data off an optical disk, and wrote it to a large-capacity magnetic tape, the above arguments would hold. There is no fundamental connection between the material the copy is made of and work that it embodies. I am not contending that any such connection exists. > I thought that the copyright act was written with some > language such that a distinction was made between "the > work" (insubstantial) and "a copy" ("the work" fixed > in a medium). Thus, "Shindler's List" is "the work" > which may be found fixed into any number of different > mediums (DVD, VHS, 70mm film, ...), each of which is > termed "a copy". We agree that the copyright act makes this distinction. I am saying that the works on different formats usually differ as a matter of fact, rather than a matter of principle. The fact has to do with the capabilities of a particular technology, but that does not imply a necessary connection between the various derivative versions of a work and the particular medium of a copy. [ ... def'n snipped ... ] > So ... "Shindler's List" is an "audiovisual work" which > was "created" when the final cut came out of the editing > room. All VHS -and- DVD editions are merely "copies" > of the -same- "audiovisual work" given the terms defined > here. I'm saying the analog-encoded work fixed on the original camera-shoot film is the original work, and the things on VHS, Beta, DVD, etc. are lower-quality *derivative* works. No one much worried about the variations between the original work and the works found on the various release-media --- until the MPAA and studios decided that digital works are, in at least one regard, radically different than analog-encoded works. (At the risk of starting tangential threads, I'll say that I think the real issue is that works *can be* digitized, rather than that they *are* digizitized). > Now, is it reasonable to assert different rights to the > -same- work based upon the medium in to which a given copy > has been fixed? Valenti did just that in his deposition. I'm not claiming that -I- think the works differ by more than minor variations (which means I'm not asserting my position on this), I'm trying to say that -the MPAA- are making potentially incompatible claims about the slightly different versions of a work that appear on different physical media. > I guess this could be restated to ask if the copyright act > protects the rights to the work as a whole, or to the > different types of copies separately? One could investigate such an argument. That was the original suggestion I made in response in Bryan's observation. I'm now saying something a little different --- that I think the potential inconsistencies in the MPAA position are ripe for attack. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 16:51:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03646 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:51:38 -0400 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 QAA03643 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:51:37 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA15493 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39494112.F3F24111@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:48:18 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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: > What was the legal status of Macrovision prior to the DMCA, I can't > imagine it would be anywhre near is ironclad as it under the DMCA. So it > would seem that they could argue that the DMCA creates a distinction of > media, based on TPMs > All I have is anecdotal evidence, but my spousal unit bought a legal Go machine (dual VCRs, no Macrovision) just a couple of years ago. Right before DMCA passed, in fact. I don't think you can get 'em anymore. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 17:02:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03870 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:02:41 -0400 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 RAA03867 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:02:40 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA30532 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:04:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:04:37 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000615160437.A30515@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <39491D5D.7F2904D1@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: ; from frank@funcom.com on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:27:13PM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:27:13PM +0200, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > > What was the legal status of Macrovision prior to the DMCA, I can't > imagine it would be anywhre near is ironclad as it under the DMCA. So it > would seem that they could argue that the DMCA creates a distinction of > media, based on TPMs The Macrovision decoder device is patented. That gave them absolute control over who could legally build devices to strip the signalling. In theory one could design and build your own VCR that lacked an automatic gain control circuit, but needless to say not many people have the ability to do that. Anyone who tried to sell cheap devices that removed the Macrovision signalling had a horde of lawyers desend with a patent infringement suit. I doubt there's any left in the U.S. today. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 17:09:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03968 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:09:52 -0400 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 RAA03965 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:09:51 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA16385 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39494557.16E701A@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:06:31 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Declan McCullagh on Valenti deposition References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C4F@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000615145948.A30299@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: > I personally have serious doubts about the viability of any > high-compression format, since image quality is almost guaranteed to go > down significantly when you're trying to shrink sizes by factors of ten. > But then, I haven't tried it, so maybe I should shut up. > > Eric I've tried it. It took over ten minutes to DL a 18000K clip. Quality varies. Go here to try it yourself. http://divx.ctw.cc/ -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 17:13:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04018 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:13:16 -0400 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 RAA04015 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:13:15 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA16626 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39494624.2B3C66B2@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:09:56 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Declan McCullagh on Valenti deposition References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C4F@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000615145948.A30299@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 steve bryan wrote: > >I personally have serious doubts about the viability of any > >high-compression format, since image quality is almost guaranteed to go > >down significantly when you're trying to shrink sizes by factors of ten. > >But then, I haven't tried it, so maybe I should shut up. > > But all of these are high-compression formats. MPEG-2 achieves about > 100-1 compression. The thing about DiVX is that it is about another > factor of 10 so I remain skeptical until I see it (which won't be > very convenient since I stick with Mac). There's a versin for the Mac. Go here. http://www.mac.st/download/ -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 17:24:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04203 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:24:57 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04200 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:24:56 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03189 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:26:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39493CEE.FCA1D84@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:30:38 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Macrovision and Go Video 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 Go Video had a FAQ, previously at their web site, that explained that because of the design of their dual deck VCRs, when you copied a macrovision tape, the macrovision signal would be copied along with the regular signal, and the result would be a copy with macrovision. According to the FAQ, because of the DMCA, they had to add circuitry to check for the macrovision and disallow copying if detected. Current Go Video models apparently include this new "feature." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 17:28:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04323 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:28:40 -0400 Received: from dial91.roadrunner.com (sf-du91.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.91]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04320 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:28:38 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial91.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03186 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:30:57 -0600 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:30:55 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000615153055.A3107@localhost> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C51@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000615143816.A2692@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000615143816.A2692@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 02:38:17PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 02:38:17PM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: [ ... ] > One could investigate such an argument. That was the original > suggestion I made in response in Bryan's observation. I'm > now saying something a little different --- that I think the > potential inconsistencies in the MPAA position are ripe for > attack. So, here is further expansion on this idea. Bryan's original question was if access controlling some copies of a work, but not others, vacated any claim to protection. I'm saying that perhaps we have a fulcrum here. If the various works are indeed the same, then assertions that some works are radically different from others for piracy purposes should fail. The claim supporting 1201's validity rests on this difference. If the various works do indeed differ in significant ways, then claims that access to only some of the works is needed to satisfy fair use must fail. Because Sony/Betamax says fair use is of constitution dimensions, we again have a challenge to the validity of 1201(a). Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 17:34:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04386 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:34:22 -0400 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 RAA04383 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:34:20 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA17709 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39494B14.EF173ADF@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:31:00 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl References: Content-Type: text/html; 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:
What was the legal status of Macrovision prior to the DMCA, I can't
imagine it would be anywhre near is ironclad as it under the DMCA. So it
would seem that they could argue that the DMCA creates a distinction of
media, based on TPMs
 
 
Official answer here: http://www.govideo.com/BdyFAQs.htm

"Can I duplicate copy-protected movies
with my Dual-Deck VCR? 

The Go-Video Dual-Deck was designed ten years ago to allow consumers the ability to
copy any tape they wanted to for their own personal home use. Most people who
bought Dual-Decks back then used them to tape television and satellite programs, and
to edit and copy home movies for their family and friends. (That is still the case today.)
Some people copied movies that they rented at their video store.

All VCR's are affected by federal legislation passed in October 1998, commonly
referred to as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This new law requires that all VCRs
sold after April 28, 2000 contain technology that prevents copying VHS tapes encoded
with Macrovision, a type of copyright protection signal. No VCR sold today can copy a
Macrovision-encoded original movie on VHS, even if you hook two VCRs up together.

Some people find that this infringes on their freedom to copy what they want to. At the
low prices that original and "previously-viewed" movies on VHS tape are selling for
today, most people don't care."
 
 

--
Dana J. Parker
http://www.cdpage.com
http://www.emediapro.net
http://www.dvdpro.net

mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com
  From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 17:42:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04471 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:42:48 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04468 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:42:47 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA28163 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:44:36 -0500 Message-ID: <39494E3A.4FB1F0E3@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:44:26 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C51@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000615143816.A2692@localhost> <20000615153055.A3107@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 saying that perhaps we have a fulcrum here. If the various works > are indeed the same, then assertions that some works are radically > different from others for piracy purposes should fail. The claim > supporting 1201's validity rests on this difference. If the various > works do indeed differ in significant ways, then claims that access > to only some of the works is needed to satisfy fair use must fail. > Because Sony/Betamax says fair use is of constitution dimensions, we > again have a challenge to the validity of 1201(a). > > Paul Fenimore I'm just riffing, but suppose the MPAA decided to only provide legitimate copies of a work in digital, 1201 protected form? Remember that 1201 says that Fair Use is still allowed, even while circumventing protection is not. Is it possible for them to claim that you are perfectly entitled to make fair use of a work, but that they can still reserve the right to prosecute you for violating their access protection? You would be subjected to civil damages not for copyright infringement, but for access violation. How different is this scenario than their current position? I'm pretty certain that there s copyrighted material on CSSd DVDs that is not available on video tape, such as the featurettes, navigational menus, the rear-left channel of the Dolby Digital audio track... This is all copyrighted material that according to 1201 we have fair use rights to, is not present on VHS or any non-protected format, and accessing it could lead to a violation of 1201 in order to make fair use of it. Basically, I'm saying that your hypothetical already exists, and the studios know it... so I don't think they'll be leaning on this argument too much. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 17:50:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04607 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:50:31 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04604 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:50:30 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:52:58 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C54@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:52:51 -0700 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 Since the DVD version has programming involved, it might be considered a "derivative work" ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 2:31 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 02:38:17PM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > [ ... ] > > One could investigate such an argument. That was the original > > suggestion I made in response in Bryan's observation. I'm > > now saying something a little different --- that I think the > > potential inconsistencies in the MPAA position are ripe for > > attack. > > So, here is further expansion on this idea. Bryan's original > question was if access controlling some copies of a work, > but not others, vacated any claim to protection. > > I'm saying that perhaps we have a fulcrum here. If the various works > are indeed the same, then assertions that some works are radically > different from others for piracy purposes should fail. The claim > supporting 1201's validity rests on this difference. If the various > works do indeed differ in significant ways, then claims that access > to only some of the works is needed to satisfy fair use must fail. > Because Sony/Betamax says fair use is of constitution dimensions, we > again have a challenge to the validity of 1201(a). > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 17:54:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04737 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:54:48 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04734 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:54:47 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19468 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.32.172] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:00:14 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 00 18:00:14 -0500 Message-ID: <001c01bfd714$9b2d0580$e3a7fea9@oemcomputer> From: "GW Law School Mail" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:56:46 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Actually they are arguing that different access conditions > > are attached to the different kinds of copies being distributed: > > > > You can't copy (for fair use purposes) 2 minutes out of Schindler's > > List from a DVD because of the DMCA, but you -can- copy those same > > 2 minutes from a VHS copy. This is a clear assertion of different > > rights to the -same- work based solely upon the medium in which it > > has been fixed. > > > > Has anything like this ever been asserted before digital media > > came onto the scene? Its relatively new; the last question on the MPAA FAQ (theirs, not ours) says that through the application of access controls, you no longer have any of the old "fair use" rights--but you can license those rights from the copyright holder for $$$. There has been a similar path with shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses, where users forfeit fair use rights, RE rights, etc., by signing a standard agreement made available to the public as a whole. The courts are divided (but generally accepting of such terms, especially when both parties are commercial entities), but if UCITA is accepted by most states, those terms will also be unquestionably binding on consumers as well. Its private intellectual property law at its finest, and it is to the public as a whole, because the works will not be available in non-shrink-wrapped or non-access-controlled form. In effect, access-controls are the digital world equivalent of shrink-wrap/click-wrap. By creating such a "plastic wrap" around the software or copyrighted work, all of those ridiculous and often unconscionable terms become, unfortunately, probably valid. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 18:13:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA04926 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:13:21 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA04923 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:13:20 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29415 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.32.172] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:18:47 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 00 18:18:47 -0500 Message-ID: <001f01bfd717$31d31540$e3a7fea9@oemcomputer> From: "GW Law School Mail" To: References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C51@mail2.onetouch.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:15:14 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Paul -- you are saying that "the work" is the combination > of both the content (for lack of a better term given that > you have appropriated "the work") -and- the medium into > which it has been fixed, so that the DVD edition of Shindler's > List is a different work than the VHS edition? The DVD edition of Schindler's List is a derivative work, because it contains creative components beyond the audio-visual work (the movie) itself. (The DVD menus, previews, cropping of images from widescreen to tv format, etc.) > So ... "Shindler's List" is an "audiovisual work" which > was "created" when the final cut came out of the editing > room. It was created as soon as it was "fixed". As soon as its down on paper or film, it is copyrighted. Well before the final cut, the first cut is copyrighted. It eventually becomes the final cut, which is also copyrighted. That final copyrighted work (and all derivatives) is the one that will be registered with the copyright office. > All VHS -and- DVD editions are merely "copies" > of the -same- "audiovisual work" given the terms defined > here. > Now, is it reasonable to assert different rights to the > -same- work based upon the medium in to which a given copy > has been fixed? Valenti did just that in his deposition. I think they are asserting different rights to the DVD because access controls have been applied. By the MPAA theory, mere application of access controls creates a new right-the right to control access-which it is illegal, under ANY circumstances, to circumvent. > I guess this could be restated to ask if the copyright act > protects the rights to the work as a whole, or to the > different types of copies separately? The copyright act (until the DMCA) only protects the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS of the copyright holder. So if you, without consent or a defense under 17 usc s 107, copy the work, make a derivative work, publicly perform, publicly display, or publicly distribute a copyrighted work, you've violated the copyright. Copyright applies both to the work as a whole (if I make a derivative work of "The Matrix" by turning it into a Broadway Musical, taking most of the characters, plot, text) I have not taken the uncopyrighted idea but the copyrighted work itself. Copyright applies to a particular version of a work (if I take my copy of Applied Cryptography, 2d ed., scan it into my computer, and make it available on my web site, I've copied, made a derivative work, displayed the work, and probably publicly distributed the work through my web server.) So, in a nutshell, copyright protects certain exclusive rights in a "work", not the "work" itself in some ephemeral way. Now, access controls are a whole other matter. Access controls protect the "work" itself in some ephemeral way; it is a type of right never seen before in copyright law. It extends the copyright holder's rights to control access, reading, fair use, etc., which is why we (and the MPAA) are having so much trouble grasping when a license to "access" occurs, what encompasses "access" and what is a traditional copyright right. The MPAA has intelligently taken the position that "access" is whatever is protected by encryption, and that any circumvention of it is illegal. 2600, and the forum, have taken the position that access controls cannot, at least, go beyond traditional copyright rights, and at most, represents an unconstitutional restraint on speech. The result will probably be somewhere in the middle, but the struggle with terms is the result of trying to put a wild turkey (1201) in the middle of a chicken coup (Title 17). I am concerned about the legal "uncertainty principle" here. The more precise the focus on a particular term and technical details, the fuzzier the meaning of 1201 and application to this case becomes. The more the discussion becomes a broad argument on 1201 and the law, the more the technical details are lost. Its frustrating. I'll be quiet now. -Doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 18:58:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05562 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:58:19 -0400 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 SAA05559 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:58:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA16139 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:00:15 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:00:14 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <001f01bfd717$31d31540$e3a7fea9@oemcomputer> 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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, GW Law School Mail wrote: > unconstitutional restraint on speech. The result will probably be somewhere > in the middle, but the struggle with terms is the result of trying to put a > wild turkey (1201) in the middle of a chicken coup (Title 17). shouldn't that be "a wild turkey in chicken soup"? sp > > > I'll be quiet now. Drink your soup, son. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 19:43:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA05884 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:43:51 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA05874 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:43:49 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 132jKT-0003Zb-00; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:45:45 -0700 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:45:45 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs Message-ID: <20000615164545.B21439@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <000001bfd682$83639fa0$e77945ce@bugbug> <3948AB07.B903736E@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3948AB07.B903736E@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:08:08AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker writes: > sparky wrote: > > > Not that I can't be as cynical as the next guy, but I think he's a perjuror. > > He doesn't know what the DVDCCA is, but he knows what Linux is (if only > > Garbus had asked him how he knows - does he read the paper?), and he knows > > what open source means. It - is - Horseshit. he doesn't know whether he can > > fast forward through DVD movies. If only Garbus had asked him how he > > *doesn't* know that - does he not have a DVD player in his home? Has he > > never used it? does he expect us to believe that he doesn't reach for the > > remote like every other red-blooded American boy and girl when the friggin > > ads come on? > > Niggling point here: the MPAA and its members do not regard movie trailers as > "ads". To them, these are valuable assets. In fact, they'd like to get paid for > showing them to you (when asked to provide trailers for a DVD movie database > disc, they have been known to ask for recompense. For what everyone else thinks > of as commercials). I do remember how popular the "Star Wars: Episode I" trailer was; people would show it for its entertainment or novelty value. Some trailers are quite well-done and highlight some of the cinematic excellence of the movie they advertise. I like watching good trailers (but I like collages too). It's just that trailers are used as advertising, and, in certain circumstances, people will not welcome being subjected to trailers any more than they'd welcome being subjected to soft drink ads. -- 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 Jun 15 20:04:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA06108 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:04:15 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA06105 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:04:14 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:06:43 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C55@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:06:33 -0700 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 They actually state that you no longer have fair use rights? Wow ... can we get that document introduced on court?? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: GW Law School Mail [mailto:dhudson@law.gwu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 2:57 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl > > > > > Actually they are arguing that different access conditions > > > are attached to the different kinds of copies being distributed: > > > > > > You can't copy (for fair use purposes) 2 minutes out of > Schindler's > > > List from a DVD because of the DMCA, but you -can- copy those same > > > 2 minutes from a VHS copy. This is a clear assertion of different > > > rights to the -same- work based solely upon the medium in which it > > > has been fixed. > > > > > > Has anything like this ever been asserted before digital media > > > came onto the scene? > > Its relatively new; the last question on the MPAA FAQ > (theirs, not ours) > says that through the application of access controls, you no > longer have > any > of the old "fair use" rights--but you can license those > rights from the > copyright holder for $$$. > > There has been a similar path with shrink-wrap and > click-wrap licenses, > where users forfeit fair use rights, RE rights, etc., by > signing a standard > agreement made available to the public as a whole. The > courts are divided > (but generally accepting of such terms, especially when both > parties are > commercial entities), but if UCITA is accepted by most > states, those terms > will also be unquestionably binding on consumers as well. > > Its private intellectual property law at its finest, and it is to the > public > as a whole, because the works will not be available in > non-shrink-wrapped > or > non-access-controlled form. > > In effect, access-controls are the digital world equivalent of > shrink-wrap/click-wrap. By creating such a "plastic wrap" around the > software or copyrighted work, all of those ridiculous and often > unconscionable terms become, unfortunately, probably valid. > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 20:05:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA06209 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:05:44 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA06206 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:05:44 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:08:13 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C56@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:08:04 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: GW Law School Mail [mailto:dhudson@law.gwu.edu] ... > I think they are asserting different rights to the DVD because access > controls have been applied. By the MPAA theory, mere > application of access > controls creates a new right-the right to control access-which it is > illegal, under ANY circumstances, to circumvent. However, this assertion conflicts with the doctrine of "fair use" in precedent and law, no? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 20:19:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA06424 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:19:12 -0400 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 UAA06421 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:19:11 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28232; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:20:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:20:59 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006160020.UAA28232@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <0FW60029WN56DI@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> References: <20000614174329.A25183@thud.reric.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Hsieh wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: >> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:18:00PM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: >> > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: >> > > > Five docs were provided today for the New York case. >> > > > >> > > > Jack Valenti Deposition, June 6, 2000 >> > > > >> > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-jvd.htm (134K) >> > > > >> > > >> > > Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he >> > > knows his own name. >> > >> > No kidding. Reading that ticks me off more than just about anything else >> > in this case. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Valenti is when >> > he says he has no idea who DVDCCA is (or any one of the other hundreds of >> > "I don't know" answers), and somebody surfaces with evidence that he's >> > lying. Does it impact the case in any way? >> >> Well, I did get a kick out of the Robert Schumann answer, even though he >> didn't know who he was either. We really need to make a cheat sheet of >> technical information for Garbus though. While I'm sure that it's not >> really a big thing in court if he refers to Linux as an organization or a >> dvd player as an OS it is a little annoying. If these minor slips could at all hurt, we really should do something. What? How important is it, that the correct technical terms be used? >Actually, I kind of like it this way. This way we will find out whether anyone of the >plantiff's side actually knows anything about Linux as well. I mean the >plantiffs/Mr.Gold should be asking "can you clarify what you mean by Linux >playing a DVD? Do you mean an application running on Linux, or the operating >system itself?" As long as they don't do this, we have a better estimation of the >limits of their knowledge. (Actually the deeper answer to that question is -- "there >is no necessary distinction between Linux or a Linux application for the purposes >of this question".) On the other hand, we probably don't want Mr. Garbus to be >caught with his pants down. Actually there was one question (in this deposition, P20) by Garbus that the Plaintiffs corrected. The question implied that there was a specific Linux organization or company. Q Do you know whether or not Linux in 1999 was trying to create a system whereby DVDs could be played on the Linux operating system? MR. COOPER: [snip] There is no Linux as an entity as we've discussed in, I think, every one of the depositions that we've been together in, [snip] Of course they are really chalenging the fact that it wasn't mentioned before, not that it isn't true. BTW, Valenti always said he never new who/what the DVD CCA was. But he was never asked what the DVD Copy Control Association was? Could that have been a mistake? The acronym was only expanded once in the (uncensored part of the) deposition. See P99. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 20:31:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA06625 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:31:20 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA06622 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:31:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10315 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:32:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:32:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C55@mail2.onetouch.com> Message-ID: 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 UAA06623 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Well as long as we're getting back to the FAQ, I believe the question is: Q If I can make an audiocassette copy of a CD, or a VHS copy of a television broadcast, why shouldn¹t I be able to make a copy of a DVD that I own? A Copyright law and the U.S. Supreme Court¹s 1984 "Betamax" decision provide for "fair use" of copyrighted material. For example, scholars and critics can quote lines from a book in a review without fear of incurring copyright liability. Or, a soap opera fan can tape an over the air TV show during the day to watch later that night ‹ under the Betamax decision, an unscrambled broadcast can be copied for this type of "time shift" personal use. BUT "fair use" is not an open-ended concept. It does not justify any action an individual may take with a copyrighted work, whether they have purchased the copy or not. It is a right to use what is available, not a right of access to works for fair use purposes. For example, the law has always recognized that a show sent by scrambled pay-per-view signal may not be viewed or copied through the use of an unauthorized, illegal descrambler. The owner of the signal has ­ and has always had -- a legal right to scramble the signal to prevent unauthorized access to the signal for viewing or to make copies of the show. Most importantly, this concept of fair use does not override specific statutory enactment such as the DMCA, which are intended by Congress to give clear protection to the rights of the creative community to use technological means to protect its product. It is this protection which has enabled the motion picture industry to launch new products in digital format, such as DVDs. Of course, my favorite item from the FAQ remains: Q Are there other software packages besides DeCSS available for decrypting DVD movies, and if so, is the MPAA attacking them as well? A There are no legal software packages available for decrypting DVDs. On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: > They actually state that you no longer have fair use rights? > Wow ... can we get that document introduced on court?? > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: GW Law School Mail [mailto:dhudson@law.gwu.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 2:57 PM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl > > > > > > > > Actually they are arguing that different access conditions > > > > are attached to the different kinds of copies being distributed: > > > > > > > > You can't copy (for fair use purposes) 2 minutes out of > > Schindler's > > > > List from a DVD because of the DMCA, but you -can- copy those same > > > > 2 minutes from a VHS copy. This is a clear assertion of different > > > > rights to the -same- work based solely upon the medium in which it > > > > has been fixed. > > > > > > > > Has anything like this ever been asserted before digital media > > > > came onto the scene? > > > > Its relatively new; the last question on the MPAA FAQ > > (theirs, not ours) > > says that through the application of access controls, you no > > longer have > > any > > of the old "fair use" rights--but you can license those > > rights from the > > copyright holder for $$$. > > > > There has been a similar path with shrink-wrap and > > click-wrap licenses, > > where users forfeit fair use rights, RE rights, etc., by > > signing a standard > > agreement made available to the public as a whole. The > > courts are divided > > (but generally accepting of such terms, especially when both > > parties are > > commercial entities), but if UCITA is accepted by most > > states, those terms > > will also be unquestionably binding on consumers as well. > > > > Its private intellectual property law at its finest, and it is to the > > public > > as a whole, because the works will not be available in > > non-shrink-wrapped > > or > > non-access-controlled form. > > > > In effect, access-controls are the digital world equivalent of > > shrink-wrap/click-wrap. By creating such a "plastic wrap" around the > > software or copyrighted work, all of those ridiculous and often > > unconscionable terms become, unfortunately, probably valid. > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 20:44:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA06779 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:44:46 -0400 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 UAA06776 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:44:45 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28405; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:46:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:46:44 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006160046.UAA28405@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky wrote: > > >On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: >> >> >Great. Incidentally, is mp3 a lossless or lossy codec? >> >> Extremely lossy. Lossless coding of sound produces 3 to 1 compression at >> best when the whole bandwidth of the original digital signal is >> utilized. MP3 and similar codecs get to over 12 to 1. > >What degree of compression are we talking about in order to realize >Schumann's 7MM? > >sparky Assume 1Mb/s transfer rate Assume 7GB of data. Assume I did the math right. In a 7 minute (420s) time frame, you can transmit 420000000 bits. You need to transfer 56Gb (7GB*8b/B) of data. The compressed data would have to be less then 1% the size of the original. (420000000/56000000000) * 100 = 0.75% of the original size -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 20:58:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA06931 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:58:24 -0400 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA06928 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:58:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20000616005952.23965.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:59:52 PDT Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:59:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 --- GW Law School Mail wrote: > > > Actually they are arguing that different access conditions > > > are attached to the different kinds of copies being distributed: > > > > > > You can't copy (for fair use purposes) 2 minutes out of > Schindler's > > > List from a DVD because of the DMCA, but you -can- copy those > same > > > 2 minutes from a VHS copy. This is a clear assertion of > different > > > rights to the -same- work based solely upon the medium in which > it > > > has been fixed. > > > > > > Has anything like this ever been asserted before digital media > > > came onto the scene? > > Its relatively new; the last question on the MPAA FAQ (theirs, not > ours) > says that through the application of access controls, you no longer > have > any > of the old "fair use" rights--but you can license those rights from > the > copyright holder for $$$. > > [...] The courts are divided > (but generally accepting of such terms, especially when both parties > are commercial entities), but if UCITA is accepted by most states, > those terms will also be unquestionably binding on consumers as well. Actually, I think even with UCITA as state law, there is a question of federal preemption that isn't settled. Vault v Quaid said RE, for example, is preempted from being given up by licencing contracts. ProCD went the other way regarding fair use of non-protectable elements within a copyrighted work. Nimmer wrote a long paper bashing ProCD. This issue seems like Supreme Court bait to me -- you've got a conflict in Circuit Courts and a true Constitutional question. My prediction is that the Supreme Court would be a lot more sympathetic than the 7th Circuit, who I believe was the strongest advocate of the "sweat of the brow" theory that was unanimously rejected in Feist. > In effect, access-controls are the digital world equivalent of > shrink-wrap/click-wrap. By creating such a "plastic wrap" around > the software or copyrighted work, all of those ridiculous and often > unconscionable terms become, unfortunately, probably valid. Are you fealing defeatist today? The fight has barely begun. UCITA is not law, the Court's have only begun consideration on 'paracopyright'. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 21:09:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07132 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:09:46 -0400 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 VAA07129 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:09:45 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28552; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:11:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:11:43 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ron Gustavson wrote: > >Valenti considers his great accomplishment to be saving the movies from >censorship with the fig leaf of ratings. This was no small feat. Then how ironic that the ratings are a form of censorship. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:01:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA07563 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:01:43 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA07560 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:01:41 -0400 Received: (qmail 16189 invoked by uid 502); 16 Jun 2000 02:06:20 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:06:20 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@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: <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com>; from Jim Bauer on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:11:43PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:11:43PM -0400, Jim Bauer wrote: > Ron Gustavson wrote: > > > >Valenti considers his great accomplishment to be saving the movies from > >censorship with the fig leaf of ratings. This was no small feat. > > Then how ironic that the ratings are a form of censorship. > No, they're not. They're self-regulation. Censorship is the use of governmental power to silence speech. As much as we all may dislike any sort of regulation mechanism, there is a major difference between one imposed by corporate powers and one imposed by an entity with the power to arrest people and roll tanks into the streets. Censorship traditionally is a very clearly defined animal. Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:09:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA07697 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:09:43 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA07694 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:09:39 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 132lbd-0003vg-00; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:11:37 -0700 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:11:37 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:06:20PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:11:43PM -0400, Jim Bauer wrote: > > Ron Gustavson wrote: > > > > > >Valenti considers his great accomplishment to be saving the movies from > > >censorship with the fig leaf of ratings. This was no small feat. > > > > Then how ironic that the ratings are a form of censorship. > > > > No, they're not. They're self-regulation. > > Censorship is the use of governmental power to silence speech. As much > as we all may dislike any sort of regulation mechanism, there is a major > difference between one imposed by corporate powers and one imposed by an > entity with the power to arrest people and roll tanks into the streets. > > Censorship traditionally is a very clearly defined animal. This particular rating scheme showed up under the threat of government censorship. It continues under that same threat (even if the public has forgotten about this issue, Mr. Valenti surely hasn't). If the government threatens to censor you unless you censor yourelf ("voluntarily self-regulate your industry"), your speech is still being censored by the government even though the laws haven't been pulled out yet. There are a number of other cases of this. The ostensibly "voluntary" regulations in some cases are much more like "coerced, industry-drafted, government-reviewed-and-approved" policies. -- 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 Jun 15 22:17:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA07820 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:17:04 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA07817 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:17:03 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA24041 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:18:51 -0500 Message-ID: <39498E6B.4ACE5E76@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:18:19 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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'd like to traipse down a new avenue of discussion, if I may. I have heard snips of it quite often in the list, but I don't know if it has been thoroughly addressed. The MPAA, in their FAQ, brings up the point that Fair Use can only be made of material that is available. As quoted earlier: > "It is a right to use what is available, not a right of access to > works for fair use purposes. For example, the law has always > recognized that a show sent by scrambled pay-per-view signal may not > be viewed or copied through the use of an unauthorized, illegal > descrambler." Incidentally, the MPAA lists the DeCSS case under "Protecting Copyright in the Courts" I thought it was *access*. Silly me. Anyway. I see this as their strongest argument. Basically, there are current general distribution models that rely on content scrambling in order to prevent unauthorized users from receiving a good (in this case a copyrighted work). This happens with cable TV and satellite signals. My satellite dish pulls in a 300 channels of TV and audio information, but I am only allowed access to about 100 of them. The rest are scrambled--access protected. Could I, in a court of law, argue that I should be allowed to make fair use of any of those scrambled signals? I doubt it, and that is what worries me. And I'm not talking about movies at this point. I'm talking about Mr. Show on HBO or Intimate Confessions on Spice. I really don't want this challenge to blindside us in court. Sure, cable converters are semi-legal, but they could easly put this utility in the priate smartcard category. I do not see any greymarket smartcard provider arguing successfully that people have a right to make fair use of scrambled satellite signals. Besides, the reason cable converters are legal is not fair use but market power. Most legit cable converters are useless because TVs have them built in and cable providers scramble *every* signal. So. Tear this down, please. Make distinctions. Gut this argument, because I think it's the best one they've got. -----------------------------------Sample position: 1) DVDs, while publicly distributed, do not grant access to the material. 2) Only the proper and legitimate combination of a player, DVD and instant permission from the copyright holder constitutes right to access. 3) Circumventing access control is akin to descrambling a satellite signal. 4) In such a case, it is theft from the service provider in terms of unpaid-for services received. 5) In the case of a DVD, the service provider is the motion picture company, and the stolen service would be access to the movie. 6) There can be no claim for fair use to material obtained without the permission of the service provider. 7) Copyright holders have the right to make the public come to their locked room, rather than to distribute copies of the work to the public and risk infringement. 8) Copyright holders have a fiduciary responsibility to reduce infringement. --------------------------------------- This is a minefield. Please disarm it. My first suggestion is the "effectively controls" part of 1201(a), but don't stop there! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:20:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA07867 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:20:00 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA07864 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:19:59 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA24262 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:21:46 -0500 Message-ID: <39498F16.60FDCD9E@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:21:10 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Censorship] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615191137.A15048@zork.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 I'm sure this argument will never die, and there's probably a legal definition, but I have always preferred the broader one. Censorship is disallowing speech. Self-censorship is censorship. Corporate censorship is censorship. Governmental censorship is illegal. If only they all were. ;) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:22:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA07954 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:22:45 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA07951 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:22:44 -0400 Received: (qmail 16319 invoked by uid 502); 16 Jun 2000 02:27:27 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:27:27 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615222727.B6819@linuxpower.org> References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net>; from Seth David Schoen on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:11:37PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:11:37PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:11:43PM -0400, Jim Bauer wrote: > > > Ron Gustavson wrote: > > > > > > > >Valenti considers his great accomplishment to be saving the movies from > > > >censorship with the fig leaf of ratings. This was no small feat. > > > > > > Then how ironic that the ratings are a form of censorship. > > > > > > > No, they're not. They're self-regulation. > > > > Censorship is the use of governmental power to silence speech. As much > > as we all may dislike any sort of regulation mechanism, there is a major > > difference between one imposed by corporate powers and one imposed by an > > entity with the power to arrest people and roll tanks into the streets. > > > > Censorship traditionally is a very clearly defined animal. > > This particular rating scheme showed up under the threat of government > censorship. It continues under that same threat (even if the public > has forgotten about this issue, Mr. Valenti surely hasn't). If the > government threatens to censor you unless you censor yourelf > ("voluntarily self-regulate your industry"), your speech is still > being censored by the government even though the laws haven't been > pulled out yet. As I said, you can't censor yourself. Censorship and self-regulation are *not* synonyms. My point was one of terminology; censorship is the use of governmental power to silence speech. Until there is a federal agency dedicated specifically to deciding which films will and will not be allowed here, there is no censorship of film in the United States. And, for the record, no one is stopping you or anyone else from seeing an unrated film in the United States. No speech is being silenced. > There are a number of other cases of this. The ostensibly "voluntary" > regulations in some cases are much more like "coerced, > industry-drafted, government-reviewed-and-approved" policies. Are you suggesting that the current American government is analogous to the Soviet Union? Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:27:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08023 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:27:53 -0400 Received: from ts0210.bates.edu (root@ts0213.bates.edu [134.181.72.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08020 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:27:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by ts0210.bates.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01010 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:29:40 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: ts0210.bates.edu: sam owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:29:39 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot In-Reply-To: <20000615191137.A15048@zork.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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > This particular rating scheme showed up under the threat of government > censorship. It continues under that same threat (even if the public > has forgotten about this issue, Mr. Valenti surely hasn't). If the > government threatens to censor you unless you censor yourelf > ("voluntarily self-regulate your industry"), your speech is still > being censored by the government even though the laws haven't been > pulled out yet. > > There are a number of other cases of this. The ostensibly "voluntary" > regulations in some cases are much more like "coerced, > industry-drafted, government-reviewed-and-approved" policies. For example, why do you think that ratings allow large quantites of violence in PG-13, but a little sex is NC-17? My answer would be that the people in government concerned about movie content are much more likely to flip out over sex than violence (although that seems to be changing, in the directtion of more flipping out overall). The industry has a "self-regulated" system at the discreation of would-be censors, who so far have not gotten their way directly. But they sure would like to. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:29:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08075 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:29:22 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08072 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:29:19 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA25145 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:31:00 -0500 Message-ID: <39499140.47CCEEE9@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:30:24 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net> <20000615222727.B6819@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 > And, for the record, no one is stopping you or anyone else from seeing > an unrated film in the United States. No speech is being silenced. Except for the fact that no newspaper would advertise them and no theater would screen them. Sure, it's not the government's fault... it's "the market's" fault. It's not censorship, it's economics. Six of one, half a [this idiom is inefficient and therefore silenced]. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:33:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08141 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:33:12 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA08130 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:33:11 -0400 Received: (qmail 16376 invoked by uid 502); 16 Jun 2000 02:37:55 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:37:55 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Censorship] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615223755.D6819@linuxpower.org> References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net> <39498F16.60FDCD9E@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <39498F16.60FDCD9E@mninter.net>; from Chris Moseng on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:21:10PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:21:10PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > I'm sure this argument will never die, and there's probably a legal > definition, but I have always preferred the broader one. Lots of people prefer fuzzy thinking. > Censorship is disallowing speech. Self-censorship is censorship. Who has the power to allow or disallow speech? Who have you granted that power to? > Corporate censorship is censorship. What exactly is "corporate censorship"? > Governmental censorship is illegal. Ah, but if governmental censorship were truly happening, it would not be. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:34:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08264 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:34:37 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA08259 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:34:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 16390 invoked by uid 502); 16 Jun 2000 02:39:15 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:39:15 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615223915.E6819@linuxpower.org> References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net> <20000615222727.B6819@linuxpower.org> <39499140.47CCEEE9@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <39499140.47CCEEE9@mninter.net>; from Chris Moseng on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:30:24PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:30:24PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > > > And, for the record, no one is stopping you or anyone else from seeing > > an unrated film in the United States. No speech is being silenced. > > > Except for the fact that no newspaper would advertise them and no > theater would screen them. Sure, it's not the government's fault... it's > "the market's" fault. It's not censorship, it's economics. Nailed it in one. Very good. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:37:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08309 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:37:16 -0400 Received: from ts0210.bates.edu (root@ts0213.bates.edu [134.181.72.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08306 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:37:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by ts0210.bates.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01049 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:39:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: ts0210.bates.edu: sam owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:39:19 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue In-Reply-To: <39498E6B.4ACE5E76@mninter.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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: > I see this as their strongest argument. Basically, there are current > general distribution models that rely on content scrambling in order to > prevent unauthorized users from receiving a good (in this case a > copyrighted work). This happens with cable TV and satellite signals. > > My satellite dish pulls in a 300 channels of TV and audio information, > but I am only allowed access to about 100 of them. The rest are > scrambled--access protected. > > Could I, in a court of law, argue that I should be allowed to make fair > use of any of those scrambled signals? I doubt it, and that is what > worries me. And I'm not talking about movies at this point. I'm talking > about Mr. Show on HBO or Intimate Confessions on Spice. > There are three possibilites for access-granting: 1) Purchase of DVD player- this is specifically disclaimed in DVD player documents 2) Purchase of DVD disc - we win 3) Combination - illegal tying For more fleshing out of this than you want to read, see my post at: http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg01655.html This post was never actually discussed - I think it was too long. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:41:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08359 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:41:13 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f27.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.27]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA08356 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:41:12 -0400 Received: (qmail 10499 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 02:42:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616024240.10498.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 208.34.217.142 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:42:40 PDT X-Originating-IP: [208.34.217.142] From: "Matthew Pitts" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:42:40 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From: "Richard A. Hecker" >Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 Docs >Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:51:08 -0700 > > >Wow. I'm still getting through this, but I'm somewhat impressed that he > >knows his own name. > >TRUE! > >Here are a few items I noticed in the Valenti deposition: > >From page 51 > 14 THE WITNESS: All I'm saying, counselor, is > > 15 that, relying on my lawyer's interpretation, that > > 16 the Beta Max case was narrowly constructed. It > > 17 only dealt with over-the-air free television time > > 18 shifting. That's all you could copy, period. > >I wonder if he considers our constitutional rights are likewise >"narrowly constructed"? > >From page 108 > 13 Did you make -- again I presume you got > > 14 that information from someone who is more > > 15 technically aware. Is that right? > > 16 MR. COOPER: Assumes facts not in evidence, > > 17 you're asking the witness whether he recalls where > > 18 that information came from. > > 19 MR. GARBUS: Yes. > > 20 THE WITNESS: I'm sure it came from some > > 21 technical expert but I don't know who. > >Is there a way to find out who this expert is? What if he thinks Schumann >is such an expert? If they pay their experts $325 per hour to come up with >7 minute miracle downloads, can we use these details to convince Kaplan >they have exagerated their claims? > >Richard Shumann doesn't seem too bright, anyway. He doesn't seem to be aware that colleges can and do crack down on network mis-use Matthew D. Pitts ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:43:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08545 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:43:08 -0400 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 WAA08542 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:43:07 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA31461 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:45:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:45:04 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Old arguments revisited Message-ID: <20000615214504.A31377@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com> <20000608153821.A30021@thud.reric.net> <39400AF3.FD478EAD@cdpage.com> <20000608171453.A30372@thud.reric.net> <39402E46.C91BD3FE@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <39402E46.C91BD3FE@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 05:37:42PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sorry to bring this back up after a week of inaction, but it took me that long to properly research my answer. A while back Dana Parker said: > Remember, a DVD is a program. It contains material and instructions that > were not present in the original film. When you apply DeCSS, you are not > retaining these programmed materials, only stripping out the video and > audio "assets". You can't make a perfect copy of a DVD by using DeCSS, > because the tools to deconstruct (demux) a DVD title into its component > parts (audio, video, subpicture, menus, commands, program chains, etc.) > do not exist. Even if they did, you'd have to use a DVD authoring > system to reassemble them into a "perfect" copy. I have contacted some folks offline, and I am assured that this is false. When DeCSS (or css-cat) is used to decrypt VOB files, nothing is lost, and assuming the decrypted VOB files are paired with the IFO files from the original DVD, the resulting collection of files can in fact be played from a hard drive or other media with, as Mr. Schumann says "full DVD functionality". I hoped to clear this up as I didn't want the list archives to leave this important issue unresolved. Dana, I tried to contact you offline but got no response. Please email me if you want more detailed information. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 22:50:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08697 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:50:37 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08694 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:50:36 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 132mFG-00042r-00; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:52:34 -0700 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:52:34 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615195234.B15048@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net> <20000615222727.B6819@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000615222727.B6819@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:27:27PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:11:37PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > As I said, you can't censor yourself. Censorship and self-regulation are > *not* synonyms. My point was one of terminology; censorship is the use > of governmental power to silence speech. > > Until there is a federal agency dedicated specifically to deciding which > films will and will not be allowed here, there is no censorship of film > in the United States. > > And, for the record, no one is stopping you or anyone else from seeing an > unrated film in the United States. No speech is being silenced. > > > There are a number of other cases of this. The ostensibly "voluntary" > > regulations in some cases are much more like "coerced, > > industry-drafted, government-reviewed-and-approved" policies. > > Are you suggesting that the current American government is analogous > to the Soviet Union? Now I remember that we never finished that old off-list discussion! :-) There are obviously (thanks, Seth F.) some meaningful differences between the two, and there are also some meaningful similarities. It's not as though the government is enormously secretive about its indirect use of regulatory power through threats; you periodically hear legislators openly speaking about how they'll give an industry an opportunity to come up with a plan, and then review the plan, see if they believe it's good enough, and, if not, pass a law. None of those industry plans are then properly "voluntary". _Sometimes_ people who might be uncomfortable with a direct government regulation in a particular area (like the content of movies) are nonetheless willing to overlook this fine point and ignore the context in which an industry "decided" to do something. Perhaps I am overly sensitive to this because a similar tactic was used in internal politics at my high school, on an issue in which I was very involved. The result is that someone can point, some years later, to a tiny piece of the story, and say "group X voluntarily chose to be subject to this policy", while ignoring, forgetting, or remaining in ignorance of what role some authority took in getting everyone to that point. First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes a "chilling effect" on speech in some contexts as running afoul of the Constitution. My informal non-lawyer paraphrase is that a court might find that a law _scared you_ so that you chose not to speak when you had a perfect legal right to (what common usage calls "self-censorship" or "internalized censorship"). Proposed laws can have an analogous effect for very similar reasons, but I haven't seen courts pronounce on proposed laws, because they are still hypothetical. That hardly means that only bills actually signed into law have an effect on behavior, though. Many people believe in the principle that "if doing X is wrong, then threatening to do X is also wrong"; there doesn't seem to be an analogous principle that "if passing law Y is unconstitutional, then threatening to pass law Y is also unconstitutional". That's fair enough as far as it goes, but even while people talk about how politicians enjoy a "bully pulpit" and opportunities for "jawboning" or "moral suasion", they are prepared to deny vehemently that improper state action could ever be a consequence of calls for "public-private collaboration" or "a partnership between government and industry" or "working together with industry on this important issue". And every time I've talked to someone about that point, the MPAA and movie ratings are the very first thing I've held up as an example. An earlier parallel many people will argue for (which came up again in connection with PICS and Internet content ratings) was the Comics Code Authority, a completely private and very Draconian system which was awful for the free expression of cartoonists and which was created as a direct reaction to the explicit threat of Congressional regulation of comic books. (That's how the free speech activists tell it; has someone heard a different account?) Maybe I'm getting back on-topic here -- you see, I've mentioned the CCA. -- 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 Jun 15 23:00:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA08846 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:00:35 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA08843 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:00:34 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 132mOv-00043K-00; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:02:33 -0700 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:02:33 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615200233.C15048@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net> <20000615222727.B6819@linuxpower.org> <39499140.47CCEEE9@mninter.net> <20000615223915.E6819@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000615223915.E6819@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:15PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:30:24PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > > > > > And, for the record, no one is stopping you or anyone else from seeing > > > an unrated film in the United States. No speech is being silenced. > > > > Except for the fact that no newspaper would advertise them and no > > theater would screen them. Sure, it's not the government's fault... it's > > "the market's" fault. It's not censorship, it's economics. > > Nailed it in one. Very good. But the government has as a policy matter decreed that there must be no widespread, mainstream market in unrated films. Are you unhappy that you can't find this policy written anywhere in USC or CFR? That there is no Executive Order that says that? You're not so pleased with unwritten laws or yet-to-be-written laws? I think it can be substantiated -- and I'm not the person to do it -- that the rating of films is not now mandatory _because it is pervasive_, and the rating of films is pervasive _because the studios understood that it might otherwise be mandatory_. Jack Valenti is proud of the accomplishment of the rating system _because he knew_ that the government would not permit an unregulated market in unrated films to continue -- not without some expensive and risky court fights in which the movie industry's public image might suffer significantly. The rating system staved off that possibility and kept the regulation of most movie content mainly under the control of the major studios. -- 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 Jun 15 23:07:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09023 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:07:54 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA09020 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:07:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 16654 invoked by uid 502); 16 Jun 2000 03:12:36 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:12:36 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615231236.K6819@linuxpower.org> References: <20000615103904.N6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net> <20000615222727.B6819@linuxpower.org> <39499140.47CCEEE9@mninter.net> <20000615223915.E6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615200233.C15048@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000615200233.C15048@zork.net>; from Seth David Schoen on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 08:02:33PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 08:02:33PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:30:24PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > > > > > > > And, for the record, no one is stopping you or anyone else from seeing > > > > an unrated film in the United States. No speech is being silenced. > > > > > > Except for the fact that no newspaper would advertise them and no > > > theater would screen them. Sure, it's not the government's fault... it's > > > "the market's" fault. It's not censorship, it's economics. > > > > Nailed it in one. Very good. > > But the government has as a policy matter decreed that there must be > no widespread, mainstream market in unrated films. > > Are you unhappy that you can't find this policy written anywhere in > USC or CFR? That there is no Executive Order that says that? You're > not so pleased with unwritten laws or yet-to-be-written laws? I'm unfamiliar with it. What are your references? -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 23:19:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09100 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:19:55 -0400 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA09097 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:19:54 -0400 Message-ID: <20000616032123.14636.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:21:23 PDT Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:21:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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: > There are three possibilites for access-granting: > > 1) Purchase of DVD player- this is specifically disclaimed in DVD > player documents > 2) Purchase of DVD disc - we win > 3) Combination - illegal tying This is a very good summary of the argument. Just to add more support: 1) Impossible because player manufacturers and DVD CCA are not the copyright holders. 2) Corresponds with first sale. Corresponds with "home viewing only" grant. Corresponds with consumer expectations. 3) Not communicated to consumer. Seems to also be excluded by DVD player licences. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 23:24:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09190 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:24:08 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f123.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.123]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA09187 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:24:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 67343 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 03:25:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616032536.67342.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 208.34.217.142 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:25:35 PDT X-Originating-IP: [208.34.217.142] From: "Matthew Pitts" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:25:35 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From: Chris Moseng >Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:26:04 -0500 > > > What degree of compression are we talking about in order to realize > > Schumann's 7MM? > >Without doing the math, I have significant doubts that the compressed >movie would be intelligble or recognizeable as having come from a DVD >rather than a stream of random MPEG-2 data or deep space radiation (if >there are any encoders that would perform such a compression). As I understand it, he's not talking about compressing the movie. He seems to be claiming that if you decrpyt the movie using DeCSS that someone else can copy it from your hard drive in that amount of time. Shumann evidently doesn't realize that most of us have better things to do than sit at our computers for days on end. Matthew D. Pitts ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 23:24:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09198 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:24:19 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA09195 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:24:18 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 132mls-00045b-00; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:26:16 -0700 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:26:16 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615202616.C15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000615101158.C489@localhost> <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net> <20000615222727.B6819@linuxpower.org> <39499140.47CCEEE9@mninter.net> <20000615223915.E6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615200233.C15048@zork.net> <20000615231236.K6819@linuxpower.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000615231236.K6819@linuxpower.org>; from greslin@linuxpower.org on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:12:36PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 08:02:33PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:30:24PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > > > > > > > > > And, for the record, no one is stopping you or anyone else from seeing > > > > > an unrated film in the United States. No speech is being silenced. > > > > > > > > Except for the fact that no newspaper would advertise them and no > > > > theater would screen them. Sure, it's not the government's fault... it's > > > > "the market's" fault. It's not censorship, it's economics. > > > > > > Nailed it in one. Very good. > > > > But the government has as a policy matter decreed that there must be > > no widespread, mainstream market in unrated films. > > > > Are you unhappy that you can't find this policy written anywhere in > > USC or CFR? That there is no Executive Order that says that? You're > > not so pleased with unwritten laws or yet-to-be-written laws? > > I'm unfamiliar with it. What are your references? Yikes, that would probably be "informal summaries of newspaper and magazine articles from the 1950s", and then analogies to recent articles I've actually read about the V-Chip, TV ratings, video game ratings, and PICS. (I was debating whether to spend this year on anti-V-Chip activism or some other cause, and sure enough DeCSS promptly came along and made the V-Chip look pretty boring by comparison.) I'll be glad to admit that I'm missing any kind of detailed understanding of what the political climate was like when the MPAA's scheme was created. I was far from being born then. My argument is basically that that MPAA's scheme was created as a result of that political climate. I would be interested to learn more about that climate and also the climate surrounding the creation of the Comics Code Authority, to understand them better and to make stronger analogies to current issues like TV ratings. There is a generic claim about the role that Congress has played in a long series of "voluntary rating" schemes and "voluntary code of conduct" schemes. So I'd like to find some documentation about examples of that from when the MPAA movie ratings were created, but I don't know of anything specific on that right now. -- 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 Jun 15 23:31:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09285 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:31:26 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA09282 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:31:25 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 132msm-000465-00; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:33:24 -0700 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:33:23 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Message-ID: <20000615203323.D15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000616032123.14636.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000616032123.14636.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 08:21:23PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor writes: > --- sam th wrote: > > There are three possibilites for access-granting: > > > > 1) Purchase of DVD player- this is specifically disclaimed in DVD > > player documents > > 2) Purchase of DVD disc - we win > > 3) Combination - illegal tying > > This is a very good summary of the argument. Just to add more support: > > 1) Impossible because player manufacturers and DVD CCA are not the > copyright holders. > 2) Corresponds with first sale. Corresponds with "home viewing only" > grant. Corresponds with consumer expectations. > 3) Not communicated to consumer. Seems to also be excluded by DVD > player licences. As long as you're making that list, I have to pipe up again with 4) Some contractual agreement between copyright holders and DVD CCA, creating some sort of delegation. (For example, copyright holders declare that the DVD CCA has authority to authorize, _sua sponte_, uses of copyrighted works -- even if consumers are maybe never actually _told about this arrangement_.) Yes, I know this may not work legally, but you're arguing that _none_ of the schemes you've thought of works legally either, so why not, while you're at it, add this one as another possible impossible scheme? Does this fit under your "3) Combination" above, or is it a distinct possibility? Maybe also 5) Intuition (the "looks legit" test, or the "Circuit City vs. German warez sites as a source for DVD technology" argument): a reasonable consumer would never assume that DeCSS was legal, because of the weird way its authors' pseudonyms are capitalized. Do you want to consider _some form_ of this argument beyond the plaintiffs? The California trade secret case has some stuff about how DeCSS naturally looks fishy so that reasonable, honest people would be wary of 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 Jun 15 23:34:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09388 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:34:40 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA09385 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:34:39 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 132mvt-00046R-00; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:36:37 -0700 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:36:37 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000615203637.E15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000616032536.67342.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000616032536.67342.qmail@hotmail.com>; from mpitts_12@hotmail.com on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 03:25:35AM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Matthew Pitts writes: > As I understand it, he's not talking about compressing the movie. He seems > to be claiming that if you decrpyt the movie using DeCSS that someone else > can copy it from your hard drive in that amount of time. > > Shumann evidently doesn't realize that most of us have better things to do > than sit at our computers for days on end. It seems to me that UUCP would be the ideal technology for DVD piracy -- unattended scheduled background batch transfers running overnight? People's attention spans have grown so short that relatively few people would _want_ to pirate DVDs using the interactive technologies available to them. "Aw, man! This is going to take 37 minutes! I'm going to drive to the mall and rent a copy instead." -- 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 Jun 15 23:39:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09451 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:39:53 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA09448 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:39:52 -0400 Received: (qmail 16806 invoked by uid 502); 16 Jun 2000 03:44:30 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:44:30 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Message-ID: <20000615234430.L6819@linuxpower.org> References: <200006160111.VAA28552@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000615220620.W6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615191137.A15048@zork.net> <20000615222727.B6819@linuxpower.org> <39499140.47CCEEE9@mninter.net> <20000615223915.E6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615200233.C15048@zork.net> <20000615231236.K6819@linuxpower.org> <20000615202616.C15588@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000615202616.C15588@zork.net>; from Seth David Schoen on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 08:26:16PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 08:26:16PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 08:02:33PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > greslin@linuxpower.org writes: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:30:24PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > And, for the record, no one is stopping you or anyone else from seeing > > > > > > an unrated film in the United States. No speech is being silenced. > > > > > > > > > > Except for the fact that no newspaper would advertise them and no > > > > > theater would screen them. Sure, it's not the government's fault... it's > > > > > "the market's" fault. It's not censorship, it's economics. > > > > > > > > Nailed it in one. Very good. > > > > > > But the government has as a policy matter decreed that there must be > > > no widespread, mainstream market in unrated films. > > > > > > Are you unhappy that you can't find this policy written anywhere in > > > USC or CFR? That there is no Executive Order that says that? You're > > > not so pleased with unwritten laws or yet-to-be-written laws? > > > > I'm unfamiliar with it. What are your references? > > Yikes, that would probably be "informal summaries of newspaper and > magazine articles from the 1950s", and then analogies to recent > articles I've actually read about the V-Chip, TV ratings, video game > ratings, and PICS. (I was debating whether to spend this year on > anti-V-Chip activism or some other cause, and sure enough DeCSS > promptly came along and made the V-Chip look pretty boring by > comparison.) > > I'll be glad to admit that I'm missing any kind of detailed > understanding of what the political climate was like when the MPAA's > scheme was created. I was far from being born then. > > My argument is basically that that MPAA's scheme was created as a > result of that political climate. > > I would be interested to learn more about that climate and also the > climate surrounding the creation of the Comics Code Authority, to > understand them better and to make stronger analogies to current > issues like TV ratings. > > There is a generic claim about the role that Congress has played in > a long series of "voluntary rating" schemes and "voluntary code of > conduct" schemes. So I'd like to find some documentation about > examples of that from when the MPAA movie ratings were created, but > I don't know of anything specific on that right now. In the absence of references, I'd suggest that the current political situation in the United States is very different than that of the 1950's. Drawing modern conclusions - such as claiming that there is currently a government policy aimed towards preventing the spread of unrated film - by analogizing against the McCarthy era is bound to be erroneous. It would be similar to claiming that the FBI in the year 2000 is the same FBI in 1950 - without mentioning that Hoover is no longer director. Or claiming that the "military-industrial complex" of today can be analogized to that of 1962 - without mentioning the effect Vietnam had on military, society and government. I'd be very careful in looking for connections between McCarthyism, the Comic Code, the V-Chip and ratings systems; each existed in a particular historical context that can't simply be abstracted out. Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 23:41:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09504 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:41:30 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f80.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA09501 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:41:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 68994 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 03:42:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616034257.68993.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 208.34.217.142 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:42:57 PDT X-Originating-IP: [208.34.217.142] From: "Matthew Pitts" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:42:57 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From: Dana Parker >Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:48:18 -0600 > >Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > > > What was the legal status of Macrovision prior to the DMCA, I can't > > imagine it would be anywhre near is ironclad as it under the DMCA. So it > > would seem that they could argue that the DMCA creates a distinction of > > media, based on TPMs > > > >All I have is anecdotal evidence, but my spousal unit bought a legal Go >machine (dual VCRs, no Macrovision) just a couple of years ago. Right >before >DMCA passed, in fact. I don't think you can get 'em anymore. Yes you can. They do have legal uses. Matthew D. Pitts ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 15 23:56:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09641 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:56:53 -0400 Received: from ts0210.bates.edu (root@ts0213.bates.edu [134.181.72.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA09638 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:56:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by ts0210.bates.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05557 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:58:56 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: ts0210.bates.edu: sam owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:58:56 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue In-Reply-To: <20000616032123.14636.qmail@web511.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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- sam th wrote: > > There are three possibilites for access-granting: > > > > 1) Purchase of DVD player- this is specifically disclaimed in DVD > > player documents > > 2) Purchase of DVD disc - we win > > 3) Combination - illegal tying > > This is a very good summary of the argument. Just to add more support: > > 1) Impossible because player manufacturers and DVD CCA are not the > copyright holders. > 2) Corresponds with first sale. Corresponds with "home viewing only" > grant. Corresponds with consumer expectations. > 3) Not communicated to consumer. Seems to also be excluded by DVD > player licences. Given the air-tightness of this argument (IMHO) it seems like that should just wrap up the case. While it won't be that easy ( :-) this demonstrates how the MPAA is trying to cheat in its determination of "what is authorized." If it doesn't get away with that, the whole house of cards comes down. The argument comes down to this statement: "If you are allowed to legally view a DVD on your equipment (which the MPAA grants) the MPAA is PROHIBITED from specifying the means by which you do so." If US v Paramount says anything, it says that. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 00:01:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA09860 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:01:11 -0400 Received: from ts0210.bates.edu (root@ts0213.bates.edu [134.181.72.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA09857 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:01:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by ts0210.bates.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05581 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:03:11 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: ts0210.bates.edu: sam owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:03:09 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue In-Reply-To: <20000615203323.D15588@zork.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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Bryan Taylor writes: > > > --- sam th wrote: > > > There are three possibilites for access-granting: > > > > > > 1) Purchase of DVD player- this is specifically disclaimed in DVD > > > player documents > > > 2) Purchase of DVD disc - we win > > > 3) Combination - illegal tying > > > > This is a very good summary of the argument. Just to add more support: > > > > 1) Impossible because player manufacturers and DVD CCA are not the > > copyright holders. > > 2) Corresponds with first sale. Corresponds with "home viewing only" > > grant. Corresponds with consumer expectations. > > 3) Not communicated to consumer. Seems to also be excluded by DVD > > player licences. > > As long as you're making that list, I have to pipe up again with > > 4) Some contractual agreement between copyright holders and DVD CCA, > creating some sort of delegation. (For example, copyright holders > declare that the DVD CCA has authority to authorize, _sua sponte_, uses > of copyrighted works -- even if consumers are maybe never actually > _told about this arrangement_.) > > Yes, I know this may not work legally, but you're arguing that _none_ > of the schemes you've thought of works legally either, so why not, > while you're at it, add this one as another possible impossible scheme? > > Does this fit under your "3) Combination" above, or is it a distinct > possibility? I think this is a subset of 1). It would mean that the DVD player manufacturers are authorized to grant access. But since they SAY they aren't, who are we to be disbelieving? :-) > > Maybe also > > 5) Intuition (the "looks legit" test, or the "Circuit City vs. German > warez sites as a source for DVD technology" argument): a reasonable > consumer would never assume that DeCSS was legal, because of the weird > way its authors' pseudonyms are capitalized. > > Do you want to consider _some form_ of this argument beyond the > plaintiffs? The California trade secret case has some stuff about > how DeCSS naturally looks fishy so that reasonable, honest people > would be wary of it. Well, I don't own a DVD player, but LiViD is waay more reputable than some of the places I get software. :-> But then, I did download my Operating System. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 00:01:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA09871 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:01:44 -0400 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 AAA09868 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:01:42 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-07.suba.com [206.69.121.199]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA25192 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:03:33 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:03:04 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bfd747$c59e50c0$f27945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: 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 Joshua wrote: > > Of course, my favorite item from the FAQ remains: > > Q > Are there other software packages besides DeCSS available for decrypting > DVD movies, and if so, is the MPAA attacking them as well? > > A > There are no legal software packages available for decrypting DVDs. Is this actually in the faq? I don't remember it.. Anyway, this is incorrect regardless. There is SpeedRipper, which hasn't been declared illegal.. and several others in fact. Check out http://www.geocities.com/askdvd/ripping.html, for example, four rippers incl DeCSS and DODSR. I think no ripper is illegal until it is declared illegal, no? Are you being facetious and fooling me? sparky ps By the way everyone, I'll let you know now that I'm grilling Andreas Bogk (LiViD participant) on the virtues of SpeedRipper vs DeCSS.. Will keep you informed.. He has given me permission to post his comments (he would like to participate, but is too busy).. Will do so soon. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 00:14:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA10071 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:14:13 -0400 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 AAA10068 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:14:12 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-07.suba.com [206.69.121.199]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA25677 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:16:09 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] materiality of licenses? Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:15:40 -0500 Message-ID: <000501bfd749$88193100$f27945ce@bugbug> 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 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 had a thought earlier and now I'm asking for a clarification on licenses. First, AFAIR, we've been discussing licenses ("home use") as something which might authorize access, nicht wahr? This is my starting point here. Are licenses of this sort really pertinent to access authorization? It struck me that such a method of granting authorization should be *ruled out* by the very creation of 1201. It struck me that if a content provider encrypted their work, and put a EULA on it that you had to accept in order to access the work (runtime decryption for viewing), since the courts have been upholding such licenses anyway in use of copyrighted works, wouldn't lawsuit be brought under breach of agreement? ..though it would be unwieldy.. Nevermind, the point is, doesn't 1201 really stand for Congress' attempt to balance out access rights in a way that supercedes/supplants EULAs? Look at it this way, EULAs granting access to authorize would be giving power to legislate to content providers. 1201 itself is supposed to provide the guidelines by which authorization is given, in what situations it is given or not given, doesn't that hold? I hope this is a way of arguing that whatever licenses plaintiffs may be working with, they can have nothing to do with authorization to access. sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 00:28:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA10227 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:28:00 -0400 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 AAA10224 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:27:59 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-07.suba.com [206.69.121.199]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA26097 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:29:56 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like anidiot Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:29:27 -0500 Message-ID: <000601bfd74b$74f81e40$f27945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: 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 sam th wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > This particular rating scheme showed up under the threat of government > > censorship. It continues under that same threat (even if the public > > has forgotten about this issue, Mr. Valenti surely hasn't). If the > > government threatens to censor you unless you censor yourelf > > ("voluntarily self-regulate your industry"), your speech is still > > being censored by the government even though the laws haven't been > > pulled out yet. > > > > There are a number of other cases of this. The ostensibly "voluntary" > > regulations in some cases are much more like "coerced, > > industry-drafted, government-reviewed-and-approved" policies. > > For example, why do you think that ratings allow large quantites of > violence in PG-13, but a little sex is NC-17? My answer would be that > the people in government concerned about movie content are much more > likely to flip out over sex than violence (although that seems to be > changing, in the directtion of more flipping out overall). The industry > has a "self-regulated" system at the discreation of would-be censors, who > so far have not gotten their way directly. But they sure would > like to. IIRC the people in government don't have any direct say in what gets put under what rating.. It's a board of citizens. Not urban dwellers either, I don't think. Personally, I think it's arguable that if government employees were responsible for sticking the labels on movies, there'd be a lot more sex all around. Don't know why.. maybe I'm just trying to be corny.. sp > > sam th > sam@uchicago.edu > http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 00:31:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA10338 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:31:35 -0400 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 AAA10335 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:31:33 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-07.suba.com [206.69.121.199]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA26223 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:33:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Old arguments revisited Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:33:02 -0500 Message-ID: <000701bfd74b$f5124ec0$f27945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000615214504.A31377@thud.reric.net> 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 ERic wrote: > > Sorry to bring this back up after a week of inaction, but it took me that > long to properly research my answer. > > A while back Dana Parker said: [snip] > > I have contacted some folks offline, and I am assured that this is false. I've been talking to Andreas Bogk offline too. He's stated that the only thing DeCSS doesn't copy (aside from the encryption o course) are the menus. sp From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 00:45:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA10424 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:45:39 -0400 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 AAA10421 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:45:38 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-07.suba.com [206.69.121.199]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA26721 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:47:35 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:47:07 -0500 Message-ID: <000901bfd74d$ec9e1560$f27945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000615203637.E15588@zork.net> 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 Seth David wrote: > > Matthew Pitts writes: > > > As I understand it, he's not talking about compressing the > movie. He seems > > to be claiming that if you decrpyt the movie using DeCSS that > someone else > > can copy it from your hard drive in that amount of time. > > > > Shumann evidently doesn't realize that most of us have better > things to do > > than sit at our computers for days on end. > > It seems to me that UUCP would be the ideal technology for DVD piracy > -- unattended scheduled background batch transfers running overnight? > > People's attention spans have grown so short that relatively few people > would _want_ to pirate DVDs using the interactive technologies > available to them. "Aw, man! This is going to take 37 minutes! I'm > going to drive to the mall and rent a copy instead." Hey pal, whos side you on? :) sp > > -- > 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 Jun 16 00:57:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA10573 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:57:36 -0400 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 AAA10570 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:57:35 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-07.suba.com [206.69.121.199]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA27015 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:59:32 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [getting offtopic] Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:59:03 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01bfd74f$978dbce0$f27945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000615234430.L6819@linuxpower.org> 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 Rob wrote: > > In the absence of references, I'd suggest that the current > political situation > in the United States is very different than that of the 1950's. Drawing > modern conclusions - such as claiming that there is currently a government > policy aimed towards preventing the spread of unrated film - by > analogizing > against the McCarthy era is bound to be erroneous. Hm.. well, of course you can't say that McCarthyism exists today, or at least not in that form if anyone goes that route; but the fact that McCarthyism, or the Cold War really to speak to the phenomenon, was in full swing then, that says a lot about these rating systems' roots. Our government wasn't regulating things then *only* because it was economically feasible.. Seth's right about the comics code, that one was a serious killer. Thank God for Frank Miller, but maybe I should thank Gorbachev first. Not that I read that Marvel crap anymore anyway, I don't even read the X-Men. Sad.. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more serious threats made against the comics industry than the film industry, and very clearly related to the Cold War atmosphere of the time. I bet there was lots of "Socrates, you're corrupting our young" type PR going on. Christ, Johnny, what are you doing with this trash about Men from Mars? Do you want to grow up WARPED?! Let me do you a favor son and burn this shit. Years later, Johnny is asked to deliver an address: "How I Got Started In Desktop Electronics". sp > > It would be similar to claiming that the FBI in the year 2000 is > the same FBI > in 1950 - without mentioning that Hoover is no longer director. > Or claiming > that the "military-industrial complex" of today can be analogized > to that of > 1962 - without mentioning the effect Vietnam had on military, society and > government. > > I'd be very careful in looking for connections between > McCarthyism, the Comic > Code, the V-Chip and ratings systems; each existed in a > particular historical > context that can't simply be abstracted out. > > > Rob Warren > > (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 01:37:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA10808 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:37:33 -0400 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 BAA10805 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:37:32 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA32653 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:39:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:39:30 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Old arguments revisited Message-ID: <20000616003930.A32635@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000615214504.A31377@thud.reric.net> <000701bfd74b$f5124ec0$f27945ce@bugbug> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <000701bfd74b$f5124ec0$f27945ce@bugbug>; from sparky@suba.com on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:33:02PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:33:02PM -0500, sparky wrote: > ERic wrote: > > > > Sorry to bring this back up after a week of inaction, but it took me that > > long to properly research my answer. > > > > A while back Dana Parker said: > > [snip] > > > > I have contacted some folks offline, and I am assured that this is false. > > I've been talking to Andreas Bogk offline too. He's stated that the only > thing DeCSS doesn't copy (aside from the encryption o course) are the menus. It's misleading to say that. DeCSS doesn't copy certain things because they're not in the encrypted files, which is all DeCSS pays attention to. Copy the IFO files over yourself and then you've got menus and any other fancy stuff the authors put in. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 02:50:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA11365 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:50:02 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA11360 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:50:01 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA13662 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:51:47 -0500 Message-ID: <3949CE33.8A660875@mninter.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:50:27 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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 > There are three possibilites for access-granting: > > 1) Purchase of DVD player- this is specifically disclaimed in DVD > player documents > 2) Purchase of DVD disc - we win > 3) Combination - illegal tying Having read your post, I can understand your conclusions about access granting that attack my Devil's advocate position. So I sat around trying to come up with other possible arguments for access granting licenses that could be argued. Has anyone else come up with anything besides those three? One possibility, though not explicitly communicated, could be implied from the studio's desires and posturing: access is granted exclusively for playback in a DVD player. All other rights are reserved. Note the distinction from a "licensed" player. The access right is only to play back the DVD. Any other functions that the DVD player provides is not necessarily approved, and you make use of those functions at peril of violating 1201. This will allow the rest of my prior DA argument to stand beyond point 2. I will grant that this license is not communicated to the consumer at sale. The distilled version of this problem, then, is: Is it at all possible the studios might assert a license that is not communicated but is attached to the DVD? Something like the "intuition license" that Bryan Taylor suggests (if I understood him) -- "You agree to use this DVD as prescribed through commonly available means, any other use may violate our right to access-protection." This would still be like the studio having you come to their locked room to watch the movie, but you may not enter through the window no matter how wide open they leave it. Meanwhile they go around shutting the windows where they don't have ticket takers one by one, suing them for trafficking in circumvention devices. So, has anyone concieved of a license that the MPAA can assert that does not violate anti-trust and could be construed as effective upon the sale of a DVD? Besides the one that sounds best to us, of course. I'm trying to stir the pot. ;) Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 03:06:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA11598 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:06:12 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA11595 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:06:11 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (jeffw@firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA27195 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:08:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3949D22F.B8DBAD92@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:07:27 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.16 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl References: <39492056.DDEE2A00@uic.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 John Schulien wrote: > Edward Hernstadt writes: > > There are several ways to compress the information, though, > > not just through decreasing the video bitrate. For instance, a > > person could take out 21 of every 24 frames per second and > > possibly accomplish the same thing. > > Ah, but you are forgetting one important thing. The main reason > why MPEG works is that a motion picture consists of frame after > frame of nearly identical material. Because the image only > changes slightly from frame to frame, my understand is that the > MPEG encoding scheme -- and this is the limit of my > knowledge of the internals of MPEG -- stores an occasional > full frame, and lots of data that describe the differences > between this frame and the last frame. Yea, these things are called B and P frames. The frame type which is basically a JPEG of the frame is called an I-frame. As a matter of practice, there is 1 I frame per 12 total frames. Typical compression rations of the I-frames are 8:1 while utilizing B and P frames increases the ratio to 30:1. > If you were to toss out 21 of 24 frames, you would be left > with program content that changes much more significantly > from frame to frame, and would require far more data per > frame to represent the much larger differences between > frames. Like you I don't know enough to say for sure how hard it would be to encode such a slow frame rate and still have to ability to represent fast-paced motion (hard to find, huge region displacements) I would say very hard to the point of not worth it. Moreover, at an update rate of 3/second the human eye would no longer preceive motion, but rather a series of stills. It would look like crap. -Jeff From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 03:22:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA11803 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:22:41 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA11800 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:22:40 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11968 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:24:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:24:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <000401bfd747$c59e50c0$f27945ce@bugbug> 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 swearittagawd. It's reall yin there - i copied and pasted it directly. Someone should grab the FAQ off of their servers before they amend it; I strongly suspect that the MPAA monitors this list. I would but my connection at home is dirt slow and their site is very bandwidth intensive. On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > Joshua wrote: > > > > Of course, my favorite item from the FAQ remains: > > > > Q > > Are there other software packages besides DeCSS available for decrypting > > DVD movies, and if so, is the MPAA attacking them as well? > > > > A > > There are no legal software packages available for decrypting DVDs. > > Is this actually in the faq? I don't remember it.. Anyway, this is incorrect > regardless. There is SpeedRipper, which hasn't been declared illegal.. and > several others in fact. Check out > http://www.geocities.com/askdvd/ripping.html, for example, four rippers incl > DeCSS and DODSR. I think no ripper is illegal until it is declared illegal, > no? > > Are you being facetious and fooling me? > > sparky > > ps By the way everyone, I'll let you know now that I'm grilling Andreas Bogk > (LiViD participant) on the virtues of SpeedRipper vs DeCSS.. Will keep you > informed.. He has given me permission to post his comments (he would like to > participate, but is too busy).. Will do so soon. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 03:46:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA11965 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:46:51 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA11962 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:46:50 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA18564 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:48:39 -0500 Message-ID: <3949DD51.63AAAA0F@mninter.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:54:57 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl References: 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 Joshua Stratton wrote: > > I swearittagawd. It's reall yin there - i copied and pasted it I don't see how it's any different from the other half-truths and propaganda on their FAQ: > The DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) is a not-for-profit > corporation... Where do the licensing fees go, then? Charity? > CSS allows consumers to enjoy the benefits of digital entertainment > because the motion picture industry is able to issue their films on > DVD while at the same time preventing massive piracy of their > copyrighted works. By ordinary citizens, world-renound for their piracy. > De-encryption destroys this protection, ...and is required to make fair use of the material. Then they go on to tell you who the DVDCCA is again (honest!): > The DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) is a not-for-profit > corporation... Thanks for the reminder. I know you're programming us to have short attention spans, but a little credit please. Your FAQ isn't exactly a challenging read. > However, reverse engineering is not permissible if there is a readily > available commercial alternative for that purpose... Has anyone addressed this claim yet? It's a bizarre one. > To the same effect, the fact that circumvention of copy protection > devices is possible does not make these actions legal. That, in fact, has yet to be decided. > As a graphic example of the impact of the DeCSS hack, the rollout > of DVD audio – which was to have relied on the CSS system -- was > indefinitely postponed because of the proliferation > of DeCSS, depriving consumers of the choice of this new higher > quality audio format. If, as they say, no copy protection system is unbreakable, why is DeCSS hindering the release of new digital products? Because this eventuality is no surprise, it should have no bearing on the release of new DVD technology. DeCSS is a red herring. ---------------------------------------------------- Sorry to go off like that. There's plenty more there. The whole thing is propagana, half-truths and rhetoric. No surprise to me. Their whole dummy organization structure wierds me out. Jacobson doesn't even know which company employs him. Valenti has no idea who the DVDCCA is. Don't fear the illuminati--fear these people. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 04:23:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA12282 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:23:55 -0400 Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net (pimout1-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.77]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA12279 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:23:52 -0400 Received: from ajimtayvaldo (KRLDA010-0318.splitrock.net [63.253.249.64]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA29454 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:25:49 -0400 From: "Jim Taylor" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] RE: Random comments on technical details Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:25:50 -0700 Message-ID: <000701bfd76c$7b1d49a0$40f9fd3f@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000701bfd74b$f5124ec0$f27945ce@bugbug> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hi all, I joined this list a while back, but haven't been able to keep up with the traffic. Yesterday I deleted all the accumulated mesages with the intent to start fresh. Today there were 112 new messages! Sheesh! I'll try to keep up this time. A few comments on various threads... Using DeCSS to copy a disc intact: Eric is correct, combining the DeCSSed VOB files with the .IFO and .BUP files lets you recreate a disc, complete with menus and all the goodies. You would have to make sure that the new image had the files stored contiguously in proper sequence for it to play on most home players. (Physical sequence matters to them, but not to computers). On Macrovision busters: You can buy a number of them. They are sold as Video Stabilizers, Video Clarifiers, and so on. This gets them past DMCA. Also any professional timebase corrector (TBC) strips Macrovision. On Divx vs. DivX: It is indeed important to keep them straight, as Eric pointed out, but if we're going to keep them straight, let's do it right. Digital Video Express LP's now-defunct format is Divx (not DIVX). The digital video distribution mechanism based on Microsoft's MPEG-4 codec is DivX. Actually, judging from divx.ctw.cc, it's "DivX ;-)". On removing frames to speed downloads: John and Chris are correct, that dropping to 3 or 4 frames a second makes little difference. Most movie DVDs have 2 key frames per second. Typical MPEG-2 frame sequence is IBBPBBPBBPBB IBBP..., where I is a key frame, usually with 12 delta frames following (for film source). Removing the B and P frames would give little improvment in file size, since I frames contain the majority of the picture information. On magic downloads: Here's a little table I made that shows what file sizes would download in 7 minutes at various connection speeds Format Mbps MB Compression Play rate 14K modem 0.015 0.79 170088:1 0.001 28K modem 0.030 1.58 85044:1 0.002 56K modem 0.050 2.63 51091:1 0.004 ISDN 0.128 6.72 19995:1 0.010 DSL (typical) 0.384 20 6718:1 0.030 DSL 0.768 40 3359:1 0.059 T1 1.54 81 1659:1 0.120 HDSL 2 105 1280:1 0.156 CD (2x) 2.5 131 1026:1 0.194 ADSL 6 315 427:1 0.467 Ethernet 8 420 320:1 0.622 Cable 10 525 256:1 0.778 DVD (1x) 11 578 232:1 0.856 ATM 25 1313 102:1 1.945 T3 45 2363 57:1 3.501 DVD (6x) 66 3465 39:1 5.133 Fast Ethernet 60 3150 43:1 4.667 Fast Eth. (no load) 100 5250 26:1 7.778 ATM 155 8138 17:1 12.056 Firewire 400 21000 6:1 31.111 ATM 622 32655 4:1 48.378 In other words, if you have a 56k modem (with speeds of 50 kbps if you're lucky), the biggest file you can download in 7 minutes (on a theoretically perfect Internet connection with no latency between packets) is 2.6 million bytes. Let's be conservative and say that the original movie is only 90 minutes long. A 2.6 MB file has to have a playback data rate of 4 kbps. Ouch! Compared to an uncompressed version of the original movie (134,369 MB = 720 x 480 pixels x 3 bytes per pixel x 24 frames per second x 60 seconds x 90 minutes), that's a compression ratio of 51,091:1. DVD is typically compressed at 30:1. As you can see, in order to download in 7 minutes a 90-minute movie at original DVD compression level, you'd have to be on a 100 Mbps Ethernet. Obviously, Mr. Schummann is not talking about DVD quality, but in order to get anything close to VHS/VideoCD quality with MPEG-4 compression (900 kbps), you'd need about 10 Mbps. In other words, an Ethernet network with no one else on it, or a cable modem with no one else in your neighborhood on it. I just heard about streaming video quality tests, where viewers were shown video at various rates from pathetic to DVD. At about 750 kbps they said the quality was good enough that they wouldn't pay more money for anything better. (Clearly the test subjects were not readers of Widescreen Review.) Now, after all of this discussion, I should point out that this entire tack is pointless (other than proving that Schummann is wildly exaggerating). You can argue till the cows come home about video quality and download speeds, but eventually it won't matter. In 10 years Internet bandwidth will increase to the point where the average surfer can download a DVD movie in less than half an hour. DVD-Rs will cost what CD-Rs cost today. That's what gives Jack Valenti nightmares. And that's how the courts will view the issue of access to "pirated" movies. I spent way more time on this than I should have, since I'm supposed to be working on a book. Like I said, I'll try to keep up, but you folks are prodiguous producers of e-mail. If I can be of any assistance in answering technical questions, feel free to send a note directly to me in case I've gotten behind again. -- Jim Taylor Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ < http://dvddemystified.com> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 06:02:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA13319 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:02:09 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA13316 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:02:08 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA25455 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:03:56 -0500 Message-ID: <3949FAEB.81344F1F@mninter.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:01:15 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: Random comments on technical details References: <000701bfd76c$7b1d49a0$40f9fd3f@redmond.corp.microsoft.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 > Here's a little table I made that shows what file sizes would download > in 7 minutes at various connection speeds... Of course, ahem, those are all theoretical maximums. In my time trial, contained in my declaration, it took 64 minutes to send the near 8GB of the Matrix from one computer to the other over 100Mbps ethernet. Full-duplexed and guns ablazin'. I surmise that the limiting factor was a cap placed by the operating system, but I do not know for certain what it was. I definitely did not do any registry tweaking, which I am sure would be necessary to approach theoretical optimum speed/saturation. Which sort of bugs me. Windows isn't tweaked for ethernet, it's unoptimized for dial up. What the heck is it good for? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 06:24:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA13519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:24:46 -0400 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 GAA13516 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:24:42 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA07568 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3949FFA2.96BB5CF8@cdpage.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:21:22 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Old arguments revisited References: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com> <20000608153821.A30021@thud.reric.net> <39400AF3.FD478EAD@cdpage.com> <20000608171453.A30372@thud.reric.net> <39402E46.C91BD3FE@cdpage.com> <20000615214504.A31377@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: > Sorry to bring this back up after a week of inaction, but it took me that > long to properly research my answer. > > A while back Dana Parker said: > > > Remember, a DVD is a program. It contains material and instructions that > > were not present in the original film. When you apply DeCSS, you are not > > retaining these programmed materials, only stripping out the video and > > audio "assets". You can't make a perfect copy of a DVD by using DeCSS, > > because the tools to deconstruct (demux) a DVD title into its component > > parts (audio, video, subpicture, menus, commands, program chains, etc.) > > do not exist. Even if they did, you'd have to use a DVD authoring > > system to reassemble them into a "perfect" copy. > > I have contacted some folks offline, and I am assured that this is false. That's funny, I read the same replies to your questions you did, and that was not the conclusion that was reached. I quote: "However this is only true in theory. In practice there are some, oh so slightly, hidden things that may trip you up." > When DeCSS (or css-cat) is used to decrypt VOB files, nothing is lost, and > assuming the decrypted VOB files are paired with the IFO files from the > original DVD, the resulting collection of files can in fact be played from > a hard drive or other media with, as Mr. Schumann says "full DVD > functionality". And yet, still not a "perfect" digital copy. Which is what you were asking about, not "full DVD functionality". > I hoped to clear this up as I didn't want the list archives to leave this > important issue unresolved. Dana, I tried to contact you offline but got > no response. Please email me if you want more detailed information. That's probably because you emailed me at cdpage.com. See my sig. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 06:42:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA13695 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:42:13 -0400 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 GAA13692 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:42:12 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA08377 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394A03BD.7479322D@cdpage.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:38:53 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Old arguments revisited References: <20000615214504.A31377@thud.reric.net> <000701bfd74b$f5124ec0$f27945ce@bugbug> <20000616003930.A32635@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, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:33:02PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > ERic wrote: > > > > I've been talking to Andreas Bogk offline too. He's stated that the only > > thing DeCSS doesn't copy (aside from the encryption o course) are the menus. > > It's misleading to say that. DeCSS doesn't copy certain things because > they're not in the encrypted files, which is all DeCSS pays attention to. > Copy the IFO files over yourself and then you've got menus and any other > fancy stuff the authors put in. > > Eric It's not misleading at all to say DeCSS doesn't copy certain things when in fact it doesn't copy certain things (like IFO and BUP files) which are necessary for the DVD to play.. My whole point was that DeCSS, by itself, does NOT allow you to create a "perfect" digital copy of a DVD. It strips out the encryption and copies the unecrypted VOB to another medium. You have to use something else to copy the IFOs and BUPs Furthermore, as we were both informed offlist, there are other, "non-content" things that are lost in this process that would anot enable you to reassemble the files into something that would play on a DVD player. As our offlist source has explained, we were both right. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 07:24:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA14129 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:24:38 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA14126 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:24:37 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00349 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:36:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006161136.HAA00349@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 00 07:30:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:30:03 -0500 From: Douglas Hudson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00103035 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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 > The MPAA, in their FAQ, brings up the point that Fair Use can only be > made of material that is available. As quoted earlier: Fair use is a defense to any use of copyrighted material; it is an exception to the copyright holder's exclusive rights. I know I sound like a broken record on this, but this is -all- the MPAA and its members get. They don't get a lock & key, just a list of 5 or 6 (or 7 counting 1201) rights. > > "It is a right to use what is available, not a right of access to > > works for fair use purposes. For example, the law has always > > recognized that a show sent by scrambled pay-per-view signal may not > > be viewed or copied through the use of an unauthorized, illegal > > descrambler." This is two different types of access. Scrambling of content like satellite and cable (under Title 42, not Title 17-the copyright act), protects the fundamental exclusive rights to make copies and distribute the work. If you pay a monthly fee, you can possess a copy of the Sopranos. Paying the fee gives you a license to access a copy of the work. > Incidentally, the MPAA lists the DeCSS case under "Protecting Copyright > in the Courts" I thought it was *access*. Silly me. CSS encryption, on the other hand, protects a different type of access. By buying or renting a DVD, you are granted a license to possess a copy of the Matrix; possessing a copy of the Matrix without paying some license fee to the copyright holder is a basic violation of copyright law. However, CSS prevents any unauthorized type of access to the content of the DVD, except playback on an authorized DVD player. The content is licensed "for home use only," so your copyright license extends to normal consumer use of the DVD. The "access" being protected by 1201 are "technological limitations on use of licensed copyrighted works, without the knowledge or consent of the licensee, and otherwise without the authority of copyright law." For example, like the old Divx disks, a copyright holder may distribute disks with encrypted content, and give you the "key" when you buy a license to own a copy of the material. That is just like the cable case. However, if you buy a permanent license to unlock a Divx disk for home use, and the movie refuses to play at some later point, then the MPAA has violated their license agreement with you. If I then built my own Divx player to view the movie, I would be restoring my own rights, but at the same time coming within circumvention in 1201. Thus the essential questions: (1) can a copyright holder go behind a consumer's back and apply access controls that destroy rights impliedly licensed through sale or rental? (2) can a copyright holder resolve this by just creating an express license that grants very limited rights to the DVD owner? > I see this as their strongest argument. Basically, there are current > general distribution models that rely on content scrambling in order to > prevent unauthorized users from receiving a good (in this case a > copyrighted work). This happens with cable TV and satellite signals. > > My satellite dish pulls in a 300 channels of TV and audio information, > but I am only allowed access to about 100 of them. The rest are > scrambled--access protected. > > Could I, in a court of law, argue that I should be allowed to make fair > use of any of those scrambled signals? I doubt it, and that is what > worries me. And I'm not talking about movies at this point. I'm talking > about Mr. Show on HBO or Intimate Confessions on Spice. No, because it is a different type of access control. The access control provides the copy distribution method, licensing a copy gives you the key to decrypt. That is what the DMCA was supposed to protect, not cases like this. > 1) DVDs, while publicly distributed, do not grant access to the > material. Divx DVDs when publicly distributed did not grant access to the materials Ordinary DVDs when sold or rented did impliedly grant access to the materials. If you license the right to have a copy of a work, you generally have the right to view the work. > 2) Only the proper and legitimate combination of a player, DVD and > instant permission from the copyright holder constitutes right to > access. That might be OK if that was in the license when I bought the DVD, but it isn't. If it's in the license, it might be tying, or it might be tying permitted by the DMCA. > 3) Circumventing access control is akin to descrambling a satellite > signal. No, given the distinction made above. > 4) In such a case, it is theft from the service provider in terms of > unpaid-for services received. No, because, under basic contract law, I already paid for a copy of the work. (Compare Divx DVDs or satellite broadcasts, where you haven't paid for the underlying work until a later transaction.) The only additional services I could ask for are fair use rights -already granted to me by federal law-. The licensor generally cannot ask for additional money to grant you a right -you already have-. > 5) In the case of a DVD, the service provider is the motion picture > company, and the stolen service would be access to the movie. > 6) There can be no claim for fair use to material obtained without the > permission of the service provider. The licensor must give you something new for your money, and fair use rights aren't it. Contrary to the MPAA FAQ, they can't make you pay for fair use rights merely by applying an access control. And when they do, it may be copyright misuse, or technological measure misuse. > 7) Copyright holders have the right to make the public come to their > locked room, rather than to distribute copies of the work to the public > and risk infringement. Sure, but they have not done so here. If they did, it would have to be by contract. If it was by contract, there would be tying, preemption of federal law issues, etc. > 8) Copyright holders have a fiduciary responsibility to reduce > infringement. Yes, and they can apply Macrovision, they can apply a different algorithm, say RCSS, to prevent illegal copying. What they cannot do is use "ineffective copy controls" as a pretext for limiting other rights of the consumer licensee. And there was your first suggestion. > This is a minefield. Please disarm it. Well, at least there's a first sweep at a clear path. A million mines to go. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 07:25:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA14170 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:25:27 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA14140 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:25:13 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00451 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006161137.HAA00451@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 00 07:30:42 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:30:42 -0500 From: Douglas Hudson To: "dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu" X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00103035 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: InterChange (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id HAA14165 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Actually, I think even with UCITA as state law, there is a question of > federal preemption that isn't settled. Vault v Quaid said RE, for > example, is preempted from being given up by licencing contracts. ProCD > went the other way regarding fair use of non-protectable elements > within a copyrighted work. Nimmer wrote a long paper bashing ProCD. > This issue seems like Supreme Court bait to me -- you've got a conflict > in Circuit Courts and a true Constitutional question. > > My prediction is that the Supreme Court would be a lot more sympathetic > than the 7th Circuit, who I believe was the strongest advocate of the > "sweat of the brow" theory that was unanimously rejected in Feist. Definately, and the SC is more sympathetic to fair use than the 7th or Fed circuits by far. But, it seems unwise to make an argument soley based on an unsettled question of constitutional federalism and copyright law. Whether state law can trump s 107 fair use is unsettled, especially as to consumers rather than competitors. For instance, in NBA v. Motorola (2d Cir. 1997), http://laws.findlaw.com/2nd/967975.html Judge Winter said " Partial preemption turns that intent on its head by allowing state law to vest exclusive rights in material that Congress intended to be in the public domain and to make unlawful conduct that Congress intended to allow. This concern was recently expressed in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg , 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), a case in which the defendants reproduced non-copyrightable facts (telephone listings) from plaintiffs' copyrighted software. In discussing preemption under Section 301(a), Judge Easterbrook held that the subject matter requirement was met and noted: ProCD's software and data are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression", and the district judge held that they are "within the subject matter of copyright". The latter conclusion is plainly right for the copyrighted application program, and the judge thought that the data likewise are "within the subject matter of copyright" even if, after Feist , they are not sufficiently original to be copyrighted. 908 F.Supp. at 656-57. Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n , 805 F.2d 663, 676 (7th Cir. 1986), supports that conclusion, with which commentators agree. . . . One function of § 301(a) is to prevent states from giving special protection to works of authorship that Congress has decided should be in the public domain, which it can accomplish only if "subject matter of copyright" includes all works of a type covered by sections 102 and 103, even if federal law does not afford protection to them. ProCD , 86 F.3d at 1453 (citation omitted). We agree with Judge Easterbrook and reject the separate analysis of the underlying games and broadcasts of those games for purposes of preemption. " So the 2d Circuit appears to have a broad interpretation of preemption. In any case, preemption is only indirectly relevant to this case. The question is first, whether the DMCA gives copyright holders the right to "shrink-wrap" their content in order to limit fair use, and whether it does or doesn't, can state-law contracts or licenses (or even worse, implied contracts from technical measures taken to protect audiovisual works) preempt all or some fair use rights provided under s 107 without the consumer's knowledge or consent, in a consumer-corporation context? The good news is the 2d Circuit seems to be respectful of fair use, when it is not merely an empty defense for piracy. So long that evidence is submitted in J Kaplan's court which shows substantial, legitimate non-piracy uses for DeCSS, especially uses which enable 'good' fair uses (creative ones, not mere time-shifting or space-shifting--I'm thinking subversion of content bundling [forced ads and warnings] or subversion of region controls), then applying the DMCA, intermediate scrutiny for software code as speech, or strict scrutiny to speech in general, it will be pretty damn difficult to ban DeCSS, and even pretty-damn-near-impossible to ban LiViD. --- The trouble with Vault v. Quaid Software, Ltd., 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), is that the DMCA anticircumvention provisions were written -expressly to overrule it-. Additionally, the "freedom of contract" crowd has a lot more support now than it did in 1988. I'm not being a fatalist, I just think that we shouldn't rely on state law preemption either way, as it is an unsettled issues. There are a number of strong spears, some of them poison-tipped, that we can throw at the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. Constitutionality, statutory interpretation of 1201 and the copyright act. Vagueness. Failure of the MPAA to limit license and authorization rights except post hoc. State law preemption is more like throwing a small rock, or a duck. It will be more relevant in the second round, when the MPAA tries to do the same thing with express contract provisions, or express limitations the user must agree to to view the movie, rent the DVD, or buy the DVD player. > > In effect, access-controls are the digital world equivalent of > > shrink-wrap/click-wrap. By creating such a "plastic wrap" around > > the software or copyrighted work, all of those ridiculous and often > > unconscionable terms become, unfortunately, probably valid. > > Are you fealing defeatist today? The fight has barely begun. UCITA is > not law, the Court's have only begun consideration on 'paracopyright'. Its law down here in Virginia and Maryland. I'm surrounded by UCITA now, and boy, it doesn't feel good. But UCITA is for another day, it is really a secondary issue to the battle now between 2600 and the MPAA. -Doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 07:26:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA14261 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:26:28 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA14258 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:26:27 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00701 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006161138.HAA00701@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 00 07:31:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:31:56 -0500 From: Douglas Hudson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00103035 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 > I swearittagawd. It's reall yin there - i copied and pasted it directly. > Someone should grab the FAQ off of their servers before they amend it; I > strongly suspect that the MPAA monitors this list. I would but my > connection at home is dirt slow and their site is very bandwidth > intensive. I have a complete copy, graphics and all, of their DeCSS and Linking faqs from the MPAA site. Some of the answers may be useful for copyright misuse arguments. Back from when the response to their FAQ was being written. -doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 09:27:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA14906 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:27:40 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA14903 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:27:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GDTbl14277 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:29:37 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:29:36 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use In-Reply-To: <20000614103641.C1040@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, 14 Jun 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >In your above example about the FCC, "unreadable FCC regulations" are still >regulations that the kid could have looked up. They weren't being kept a >secret; they were available. There would be a huge difference - at least >in the U.S. - between busting the kid for breaking a law of which he was >unaware and busting the kid for breaking a law that wasn't even part of the >public record. OK. How about putting the laws out under strong encryption and not divulging the key? Not very different from writing them in incomprehensible language. The objections toward secret laws come from the common sense principle that you should not be put in jail for doing something which you have no reason to believe is illegal. The technicalities of public records and availability are just hypocricy used to justify the fact that nowadays people can be accused with things that do not pass the test of common sense. >But let's say that there *was* no law on the books, at least no public ones, >so you have a situation where it was flat-out *impossible* for that kid to >know. Not difficult, not impractical, not unlikely - IMPOSSIBLE. Effectively >what you get then is governmental power possessing the arbitrary power to >arrest and prosecute anyone, anywhere, for anything - and the power to make >it stick. In short, a complete destruction of civil rights. Ja Wohl. Well. Let's say there is so much law and regulations that we can prove it impossible for an average human (or any human, for that matter) to ever read or remember it all. This leads to there always being laws one cannot know about. This is the situation today, but nobody complains. >Now we can argue whether or not governmental powers de facto have this ability >anyway, but that's not really the point either. If the government truly had >this sort of power, we'd be living in the Fourth Reich. You saying we are not? Why does this list exist, then? How does it happen that Jon Johanssen gets into trouble for something which *is not illegal in Norway* because it is in US? >Keep in mind that this case is a lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. Never missed it. I just have trouble with terminology. >You went by those signs every day for years; it's reasonable to assume that >you've had an opportunity to be aware of the limit in that area. Yet a legally covered sign will impose you to penalties for underspeed. And has, in some cases. The funniest thing is that while laws may be publically available, their interpretation (and court precedent) also affects the outcome of any possible cases. So, short of being prescient (foreseeing the legal history of a law) and omniscient (knowing precisely how a law will be interpreted in all situations), one cannot know whether some action is legal or not. Nobody even expects the layman to know whether his actions constitute unlawful activity. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 09:37:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA15034 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:37:26 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA15031 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:37:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GDdOe15415 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:39:24 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:39:23 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time 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, 14 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: >It would make it illegal to circumvent a TPM *just because*; there would >be zero relation between the law and the real-world effect it was supposed >to have. Isn't that what DMCA is all about? Isn't it also the most common stumbling point when you think of 1201 in terms of traditional, 'fair' copyright? Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 09:50:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA18473 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:50:01 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA18470 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:49:59 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GDpwV16822 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:51:58 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:51:58 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C3D@mail2.onetouch.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, 14 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: >Not so sure about this. Many people are eager to have >something that noone (or few) others have. A bad copy >of StarWars on video tape back when it was first released >on film would still have been a highly sought-after property. And that's precisely because the stuff isn't yet commercially available. This neither cuts into the market shares of the movie theatres or the suppliers of legal VHS copies. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 10:01:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19081 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:01:09 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19069 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:01:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GE31C17908 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:03:01 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:02:59 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] non-infringing use In-Reply-To: <20000614151937.H1040@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, 14 Jun 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >When folks are arguing that two corporate powers can sign a treaty, decide >between themselves what "authorization" is, keep that definition a secret from >the very people who would need to know it - I still maintain that this secrecy >would make a hell of a good defense should the issue come up in court. Technically you can obtain the licence. It just costs $10000 'in administrative fees' and a waiver of right-to-tell in addition to the $10 you pay for the DVD. And even if this wasn't the case, you can always buy 60% stock in Toshiba inc.. >The >issue would not be ignorance of the law; the issue would be whether a citizen >in a free society can be prosecuted for not doing the impossible - obeying to >the letter legal mandates which are purposely being held from that citizen. There is no such thing as impossible, only expensive. >Imagine that some governmental agency had the power to quietly make a new rule >that made it a capital offense to watch television between 10am and noon on >Wednesdays. Since they know this would cause an uproar, it isn't put into the >public record; word is just quietly sent to the police to start arresting >offenders, which they do. Folks start disappearing at night; rumors start >going around. The effect is the same if the rule is buried under tons of legal mumbo jumbo on the permitted width tolerance of cattle ramps. >How good of a citizen are you? What *kind* of a citizen are you? One who likes to do stuff like participate in forums like this and pick on things discussed in them. And as a result, lives in constant fear of breaking a law he does not know about because finding the law would mean thousands of FIM worth of lawyer-time. Not much different from signing the NDA and becoming a CSS licencee. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 10:17:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19225 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:17:46 -0400 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 KAA19222 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:17:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA07291 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:19:43 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:19:43 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > I swearittagawd. It's reall yin there - i copied and pasted it directly. > Someone should grab the FAQ off of their servers before they amend it; I > strongly suspect that the MPAA monitors this list. I would but my > connection at home is dirt slow and their site is very bandwidth > intensive. Oh, it's *their* faq. I was corn-fused. Hey Tim, is this the faq you swiped a copy of? It probably would be a good ideer to get a copy of the source, for the good it will do. sp > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > > > Joshua wrote: > > > > > > Of course, my favorite item from the FAQ remains: > > > > > > Q > > > Are there other software packages besides DeCSS available for decrypting > > > DVD movies, and if so, is the MPAA attacking them as well? > > > > > > A > > > There are no legal software packages available for decrypting DVDs. > > > > Is this actually in the faq? I don't remember it.. Anyway, this is incorrect > > regardless. There is SpeedRipper, which hasn't been declared illegal.. and > > several others in fact. Check out > > http://www.geocities.com/askdvd/ripping.html, for example, four rippers incl > > DeCSS and DODSR. I think no ripper is illegal until it is declared illegal, > > no? > > > > Are you being facetious and fooling me? > > > > sparky > > > > ps By the way everyone, I'll let you know now that I'm grilling Andreas Bogk > > (LiViD participant) on the virtues of SpeedRipper vs DeCSS.. Will keep you > > informed.. He has given me permission to post his comments (he would like to > > participate, but is too busy).. Will do so soon. > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 10:36:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19437 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:36:24 -0400 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 KAA19434 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:36:23 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA08000 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:38:21 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:38:20 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] blank DVDs blocked sectors? was Homerun time 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 Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > > >It would make it illegal to circumvent a TPM *just because*; there would > >be zero relation between the law and the real-world effect it was supposed > >to have. > > Isn't that what DMCA is all about? Isn't it also the most common stumbling > point when you think of 1201 in terms of traditional, 'fair' copyright? Contrary to plaintiffs assertions, I don't think the law gives them the right to just deny access. When you start examining these things access itself becomes very murky. First off, the non-distribution clause speaks of authorization, but it also speaks of TPMs which protect rights of the copyright holder. if CSS does not do this - and there are a number of arguments available to the effect that it isn't - that reduces the burden on the defendants, I think. If the law supports CSS even when this is true of it, by banning DeCSS, that would effectively put far more of a burden on users of content than I think the authors of the law intended. sparky > > Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 10:37:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19543 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:37:58 -0400 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 KAA19540 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:37:57 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA08070 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:39:55 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:39:55 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Old arguments revisited In-Reply-To: <20000616003930.A32635@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, 16 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:33:02PM -0500, sparky wrote: > > ERic wrote: > > > > > > Sorry to bring this back up after a week of inaction, but it took me that > > > long to properly research my answer. > > > > > > A while back Dana Parker said: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > I have contacted some folks offline, and I am assured that this is false. > > > > I've been talking to Andreas Bogk offline too. He's stated that the only > > thing DeCSS doesn't copy (aside from the encryption o course) are the menus. > > It's misleading to say that. DeCSS doesn't copy certain things because > they're not in the encrypted files, which is all DeCSS pays attention to. > Copy the IFO files over yourself and then you've got menus and any other > fancy stuff the authors put in. > > Eric Ah so. I'll ask him about this. sp > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 11:13:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA19918 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:13:52 -0400 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 LAA19915 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:13:50 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA01565 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:15:49 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:15:49 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Old arguments revisited Message-ID: <20000616101549.A1445@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com> <20000608153821.A30021@thud.reric.net> <39400AF3.FD478EAD@cdpage.com> <20000608171453.A30372@thud.reric.net> <39402E46.C91BD3FE@cdpage.com> <20000615214504.A31377@thud.reric.net> <3949FFA2.96BB5CF8@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <3949FFA2.96BB5CF8@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 04:21:22AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 04:21:22AM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > Eric Seppanen wrote: > > > Sorry to bring this back up after a week of inaction, but it took me that > > long to properly research my answer. > > > > A while back Dana Parker said: > > > > > Remember, a DVD is a program. It contains material and instructions that > > > were not present in the original film. When you apply DeCSS, you are not > > > retaining these programmed materials, only stripping out the video and > > > audio "assets". You can't make a perfect copy of a DVD by using DeCSS, > > > because the tools to deconstruct (demux) a DVD title into its component > > > parts (audio, video, subpicture, menus, commands, program chains, etc.) > > > do not exist. Even if they did, you'd have to use a DVD authoring > > > system to reassemble them into a "perfect" copy. > > > > I have contacted some folks offline, and I am assured that this is false. > > That's funny, I read the same replies to your questions you did, and that was > not the conclusion that was reached. > > I quote: "However this is only true in theory. In > practice there are some, oh so slightly, hidden things that may trip you up." Your'e taking that a little out of context. Those "hidden things" are the absolute addresses stored in IFO files. These are only used on consumer-grade hifi players, not on computers. They may cause a DVD-R to become unplayable if you're not careful, but they do not affect computer players is the slightest way. The simple fact is that it's possible to make a hard-drive decrypted copy of a DVD. No authoring tools are required, and I fail to see what criteria you're using to claim this isn't a "perfect" copy. > > When DeCSS (or css-cat) is used to decrypt VOB files, nothing is lost, and > > assuming the decrypted VOB files are paired with the IFO files from the > > original DVD, the resulting collection of files can in fact be played from > > a hard drive or other media with, as Mr. Schumann says "full DVD > > functionality". > > And yet, still not a "perfect" digital copy. Which is what you were asking > about, not "full DVD functionality". A copy with identical MPEG content, identical sound and video, and identical program chains, menus, soundtracks, etc. seems like a "perfect" copy to me. Can you clarify what your definition of perfect is that this doesn't fit? You need to provide more information to back up what you're saying. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 11:18:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20062 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:18:59 -0400 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA20059 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:18:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20000616152027.14754.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:20:27 PDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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 --- Chris Moseng wrote: > So, has anyone concieved of a license that the MPAA can assert that > does not violate anti-trust and could be construed as effective > upon the sale of a DVD? Besides the one that sounds best to us, of > course. I'm trying to stir the pot. ;) I'm trying to think about the authorization model from the MPAA point of view. Here's a devils advocate argument: Authorization to view occurs via the title key. If you legally hold this, you can view the DVD with our authority. It is however a trade secret. Access to the title key is controlled by the disk, player, and bus keys. Licenced players are authorized to extract the title key by our storing the title key under protection of their player key. Consumers were never authorized to extract this key. In fact, the title key is a protected trade secret. Another arguement: Our authorization is "for viewing only". We did not authorize persistent storage of the decrypted output. Analogy: we invited you into the theater, not to take the chair home. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 11:36:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20257 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:36:41 -0400 Received: from dial167.roadrunner.com (dial167.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.167] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20254 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:36:38 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial167.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA00773 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:38:57 -0600 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:38:57 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Message-ID: <20000616093856.A518@localhost> References: <39498E6B.4ACE5E76@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <39498E6B.4ACE5E76@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:18:19PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:18:19PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: [ ... ] > I see this as their strongest argument. Basically, there are current > general distribution models that rely on content scrambling in order to > prevent unauthorized users from receiving a good (in this case a > copyrighted work). This happens with cable TV and satellite signals. 47 USC 605, 553. > My satellite dish pulls in a 300 channels of TV and audio information, > but I am only allowed access to about 100 of them. The rest are > scrambled--access protected. > > Could I, in a court of law, argue that I should be allowed to make fair > use of any of those scrambled signals? I doubt it, Before or after you pay for the work? 47 USC says, indirectly, that once you pay, you get access. Your use is subsequently governed by copyright, rather than censor--oops, paracopyright. > and that is what > worries me. And I'm not talking about movies at this point. I'm talking > about Mr. Show on HBO or Intimate Confessions on Spice. > > I really don't want this challenge to blindside us in court. Sure, cable > converters are semi-legal, but they could easly put this utility in the > priate smartcard category. I do not see any greymarket smartcard > provider arguing successfully that people have a right to make fair use > of scrambled satellite signals. Besides, the reason cable converters are > legal is not fair use but market power. Most legit cable converters are > useless because TVs have them built in and cable providers scramble > *every* signal. > > So. Tear this down, please. Make distinctions. Gut this argument, > because I think it's the best one they've got. In my view the act of publication has traditionally been an act of relinquishing access control to a work. 1201, read the way the MPAA wants it, is access control past publication and first sale until copyright expires (Valenti: forever, less one day ==> infinity - 1). The suggestion all along has been that access control is necessary to prevent big, bad, evil internet piracy, much worse than than the apocalypse. The argument in terms of 47 USC and commerce clause sounds much more like an argument for access control on works not associated with a copy, prior to first sale. > -----------------------------------Sample position: > > 1) DVDs, while publicly distributed, do not grant access to the > material. Let me rephrase: the DVD went through first-sale, but not publication. We're making the copy available to the public, but we are not publishing the work embodied in the copy. > 2) Only the proper and legitimate combination of a player, DVD and > instant permission from the copyright holder constitutes right to > access. This is actually an authorization argument, which is pretty well fleshed out else where. > 3) Circumventing access control is akin to descrambling a satellite > signal. Yes it is. The question in both cases is if you paid. If payment isn't the issue, then it doesn't sound like 1201 has much to do with commerce, nor does it sound like the priniciple of publication has any meaning. > 4) In such a case, it is theft from the service provider in terms of > unpaid-for services received. > 5) In the case of a DVD, the service provider is the motion picture > company, and the stolen service would be access to the movie. This argument works for DIVX, but not for CSS'ed DVDs because there is no continuing business relationship. Incidentally, this is the really dangerous aspect of 1201. By failing to specify first sale as a point of authorization for "disembodied" works (and publication for tangible copies), it means that the cartel will eventually abolish first-sale and only "license" or "rent" movies. > 6) There can be no claim for fair use to material obtained without the > permission of the service provider. No continuing business relationship for either player or disk. Consequently, no service. > 7) Copyright holders have the right to make the public come to their > locked room, rather than to distribute copies of the work to the public > and risk infringement. Right. Congress intended to abolish the idea of publication, thus rendering first-sale meaningless. Because the word 'publication' doesn't appear in art.1, sect. 8, it is within Congress' power to abolish publication. > 8) Copyright holders have a fiduciary responsibility to reduce > infringement. To the MPAA: get it right. This is an (a) suit, not a (b) suit. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 11:42:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20443 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:42:16 -0400 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 LAA20440 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:42:15 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl208.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.208]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA26936 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394A4A0E.83981E18@cdpage.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:38:54 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Old arguments revisited References: <393FEE84.CDD837EC@cdpage.com> <20000608153821.A30021@thud.reric.net> <39400AF3.FD478EAD@cdpage.com> <20000608171453.A30372@thud.reric.net> <39402E46.C91BD3FE@cdpage.com> <20000615214504.A31377@thud.reric.net> <3949FFA2.96BB5CF8@cdpage.com> <20000616101549.A1445@thud.reric.net> Content-Type: text/html; 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:

You need to provide more information to back up what you're saying.


Everything necessary to back up what I am saying was provided by our offlist source.

Look, this is splitting hairs. You misunderstood what I was claiming in the first place (there's more to making a copy than just using DeCSS) and it snowballed from there. Here's my original post on the topic:
  

Let's not lose sight of the fact that DeCSS, with or without DivX, does NOT, in
fact, allow you to make a perfect copy of a DVD. It allows you to copy
unencrypted VOB files to your hard drive or another medium. There's a lot more
to a DVD than VOB files, in fact the VOB files are arguably the least creative
parts of the title. Furthermore, even a DVD is not a "perfect copy" of a film -
it is another medium of expression altogether. Decrypting, copying, and
reassembling VOB files is at least two steps removed from the original work,
even though it does restore the work to its original linear form.


Now, if you still have some doubt that any of the above statements are true, fine. Otherwise I'm done arguing about this.

--
Dana J. Parker
http://www.cdpage.com
http://www.emediapro.net
http://www.dvdpro.net

mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com
  From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 11:59:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20712 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:59:32 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20709 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:59:31 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08771 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:01:31 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <394A4236.FAEA10DB@uic.edu> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:05:26 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] [completely offtopic] Motion picture rating system 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 Ron Gustavson wrote: > >Valenti considers his great accomplishment to be saving the movies from >censorship with the fig leaf of ratings. This was no small feat. How ironic that the ratings system has served to infuse nearly every adult (as in grown-up, not as in porn) movie with a mandatory quota of sex and/or violence. The introduction of the ratings system did much more then save the movies from censorship. It divided all motion pictures into four narrow categories, which then became marketing designations. How many times have you seen a movie that would have been "PG", except for a brief, completely gratuitous scene involving just enough nudity or cursing to push the movie into an R rating. For instance, when I was young, I had to have my parents take me to see the musical "The Blues Brothers" because it was rated R. What was the purpose of tailoring that movie to that rating? Market research has proved that the rating of a movie is a strong factor in how people choose what movies to attend, and "R" means grownup, so as an effect, nearly all "grownup" movies have to have enough sex and/or violence to keep them from getting a "PG" rating. Same thing with television. Since the institution of TV ratings, television shows are now showing much more gratuitous sex and violence. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 12:02:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA20851 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:02:06 -0400 Received: from dial147.roadrunner.com (dial147.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.147] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20848 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:02:03 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial147.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00989 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:04:23 -0600 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:04:21 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000616100421.B518@localhost> References: <3949DD51.63AAAA0F@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3949DD51.63AAAA0F@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 02:54:57AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 02:54:57AM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > Joshua Stratton quoted the MPAA: [ ... ] > > De-encryption destroys this protection, > > ...and is required to make fair use of the material. ... and is required to make *any* use of the work. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 12:09:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA20917 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:09:53 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20914 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:09:52 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10334 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:11:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <394A44A4.9F4DB5E8@uic.edu> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:15:48 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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 sam th wrote: > There are three possibilites for access-granting: > > 1) Purchase of DVD player- this is specifically disclaimed in DVD Bryan Taylor replied: > 1) Impossible because player manufacturers and DVD CCA are not the > copyright holders. What if they claim that as part of the "secret agreement", the DVDCCA is granted limited authority by the copyright holders to grant access to DVD content to the public in the form of licensed DVD players under the terms of the agreement? (i.e. region coding, no digital out, etc.) We don't know the terms of the agreement. Does it matter? Would such an arrangement have any legal bearing on consumers, given that the arrangement is secret? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 12:24:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21127 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:24:29 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21124 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:24:28 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12696 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:26:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <394A480F.B75FD8DC@uic.edu> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:30:23 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] [careening offtopic] McCarthyism 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 the absence of references, I'd suggest that the current > political situation in the United States is very different than > that of the 1950's. Drawing modern conclusions - such as > claiming that there is currently a government policy aimed > towards preventing the spread of unrated film - by analogizing > against the McCarthy era is bound to be erroneous. Back in the 50s, the government was in control of the agenda. Now, the entertainment industry dictates laws to Congress, and Congress passes them. That's how we got copyright extension. That's how we got the DMCA. Bill Clinton loves Hollywood, and Hollywood can do no wrong. If you want to draw parallels to the 1950s, I'd say that the "drug war" has replaced McCarthyism, and the military industrial complex has been replaced by the prison industrial complex, but I could go on and on about that issue. Anyone interested in that issue should check out mapinc.org and marijuananews.com. The entertainment industry is firmly in control of the public agenda. Coincidently, this shift coincided largely with the merger of the entertainment companies with the news companies. Notice how most news stories, with very few exceptions, parrot the MPAA party line about "internet movie piracy"? How do you shift public opinion when the news organizations are branches of the same companies that are pushing these bad laws? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 12:32:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21327 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:32:30 -0400 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 MAA21324 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:32:29 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA12540 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:34:28 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:34:27 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? 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 just read that FAT32 doesn't support files larger than 4 gig. is this *true*? if yes, another difficulty with the "downloading movies over the internet" hypothesis, and a big one. "Why can't I download this 5 Gig [ie very small] movie?" sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 12:50:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21512 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:50:29 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21509 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:50:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GGqMc29828 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:52:27 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:52:21 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jack Valenti Deposition 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, 14 Jun 2000, Jim Bauer wrote: >What is "incomplete" about all these questions? I think somebody here who knows all about the standard legal lingo needs to clarify to the rest of us what all those funky oppositions are all about. It's damned hard to read the transscripts when half the total size is wasted on the defendant's lawyers speaking incomprehensible gibberish. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 12:52:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21606 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:52:41 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21603 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:52:40 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GGsdw29960 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:54:39 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:54:39 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jack Valenti Deposition In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000614205522.00a09c90@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> 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, 14 Jun 2000, Richard A. Hecker wrote: >This does seem disingenuous. He struggles over many of the >questions and keeps saying he cannot remember. Yet in this >answer he invites a digital-vs-analog comparison. Does it sound >reasonable that the student with a DVD is restricted to the entire >disk when they only need a segment? It's also funny because the student might actually infringe if he uses substantial portions of the work. >Also, does he feel the same way about an analog segment that >has been taped from an HBO broadcast? I think using taped programs is equally suspect. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 12:55:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21675 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:55:32 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21672 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:55:31 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17749 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:57:32 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <394A4F57.939B5744@uic.edu> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:01:27 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD Audio 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 graphic example of the impact of the DeCSS hack, the rollout > of DVD audio - which was to have relied on the CSS system -- was > indefinitely postponed because of the proliferation > of DeCSS, depriving consumers of the choice of this new higher > quality audio format. This is particularly disingenuous on their part. DVD Audio was held up long before DeCSS. Blaming DeCSS for the DVD audio holdup is a red herring. The RIAA is raking in millions of dollars on unprotected CDs. If they thought they could make more money on DVD audio, it would be on the market. The cynics among us would say that the real reason it is being held up is that the format has much more capacity then the RIAA wants on a single piece of media. So long as DVD audio is "held up", the player market remains stalled. Once DVD Audio is rolled out, players will appear, then recorders. The "problem" with the recorders is that they hold too much data. Hours and hours of true CD quality sound. The recording industry is based on a sales model of "up to 74 minutes of music for $18.00." Audio DVD breaks that model by providing a low cost, 8+ hour recording media, which I believe is really what the RIAA is afraid of. DeCSS provides a nice excuse for holding up DVD Audio though, and serves the dual purpose of synthesising a "graphic example" of customer harm caused by DeCSS. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 12:55:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21685 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:55:55 -0400 Received: from dial228.roadrunner.com (sf-du228.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21682 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:55:52 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial228.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01133 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:58:12 -0600 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:58:11 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Message-ID: <20000616105811.C518@localhost> References: <200006161136.HAA00349@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006161136.HAA00349@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>; from DHudson@law.gwu.edu on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:30:03AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:30:03AM -0500, Douglas Hudson wrote: [ ... ] > > 8) Copyright holders have a fiduciary responsibility to reduce > > infringement. > > Yes, and they can apply Macrovision, they can apply a different algorithm, > say RCSS, to prevent illegal copying. What they cannot do is use > "ineffective copy controls" as a pretext for limiting other rights of the > consumer licensee. And there was your first suggestion. To the MPAA: Techological copy control is physically incompatible with the legal construct of publication. The *aim* of publication is to show things to people. If you show someone a work, they can copy it. This is the "access" test in many infringement suits. There is exactly one "algorithm" to prevent the copying of data after publication: destroy all copies of the work. Furthermore, any purported technological copy control that allows access after "publication" is *guaranteed* to have a failure mode that is independent of any detail of the technological measure. Make authorized access/use of the work, and take the opportunity to make an unauthorized copy. There is no way to separate authorization to view a descrambled work from the act of copying, authorized or not. One might as well define pi = 22/7. Access comes before use, but publication comes before access. CSS is a technological access control. Any apparent and incidental role as copy control is a result of controlling access, not preventing copying per se. The way the MPAA gets away with this bamboozle is to create a cosmology of copying where "digital is different". Part of their claim is that digital copying justifies making categories of copying. 1. Essentally lossless reproduction is not new. This is an innovation that is properly credited to written language, alphabetic or not. The fact that books are published using alphabetic characters, the meaning of which is preserved to "the thousandth copy", hasn't destroyed the book publishing industry or the institution of copyright. 2. Part of what they are yapping about is electronic reproduction, not digital. They are complaining about the low cost. People used to set books by hand too. The switch to electronic typesetting doesn't seem to have vanquished copyright, even if it did cost many typesetters their jobs. Copyright is an incentive to authors, not a sinecure to publishers and distributors. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:01:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21879 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:01:40 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21876 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:01:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GH3cw00476 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:03:38 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:03:37 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot In-Reply-To: <20000615142425.9648.qmail@web509.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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: >I cannot believe that someone who speaks regularly >about DVD piracy would be unaware of the DVD Copy Control Association's >**existance**, especially when Valenti co-signed a letter with them, as >Garbus pointed out. I cannot believe that this man would not be aware >of the DVD CCA's related lawsuit. I think this could have some repercussions for the first sale debate. If MPAA's head is not aware of DVD CCA's existence, either we have a shitload of perjury here or there can be no chain of delegation of authority from MPAA members to DVD CCA licencees. >The number of time that Valenti answers "I don't know" or "I can't >recall" would make Ronald Reagan seem like a memory champ. Hmm. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's *are* common diceases... Or given the raged, obsessive manner of the MPAA, should we begin thinking about BSE? Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:04:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21974 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:04:05 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21971 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:04:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GH63K00590 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:06:03 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:06:03 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot In-Reply-To: <20000615103904.N6819@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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000 greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >My guess is that he's just a political hack. His people tell him what >to say; he doesn't make his money for actually knowing things himself. Oh yes, he knows. Some of the text I've seen originating from him (and come on, I'm not on the same continent) suggests that he indeed is an expert on this stuff. Remember, before the DVD CCA, MPAA was the only serious player in the movie copyright protection arena. One does not lead such an organization for 34 years without knowing what's up. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:06:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22032 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:06:02 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22029 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:06:01 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c01-091.015.popsite.net [64.24.72.91]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA05301 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616100214.00a9c330@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:05:50 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Hollywood cracks down on Web VCR site 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 FYI http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-2086951.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.ni Hollywood cracks down on Web VCR site By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com June 15, 2000, 5:10 p.m. PT The motion picture industry and a dozen TV and movie studios sued start-up RecordTV.com today, charging that the Web VCR service has violated their copyrights. The lawsuit is in many ways a replay of a similar legal fight earlier this year over Canadian company iCraveTV.com, which offered online access to TV broadcasts before being closed by an onslaught of lawsuits. RecordTV, created by Los Angeles resident David Simon, acts as a kind of VCR on the Web, recording TV shows for later playback. The site, which Simon launched late last year as a service to his children, has skyrocketed to attracting nearly 2 million hits a day in recent months, Simon said. That was enough to put it squarely on the radar screen of the big movie and TV studios. The industry is charging that Simon has committed massive copyright infringement by recording TV shows online and is asking for up to $150,000 per work copied and distributed. "Simon, willingly and knowingly, has built a business based on offering its customers access to valuable stolen property," Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement today. "One hundred percent of the profits are made from offering popular television programs and movies that RecordTV has obtained no right to copy or display or have any part in distributing." The lawsuit marks the latest move in the film industry's mounting efforts to block online business models that it believes take distribution of TV or movies out of studios' or broadcasters' hands. [....] -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:06:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22074 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:06:44 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22071 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:06:42 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GH8gR00688 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:08:42 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:08:42 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti looked like an idiot In-Reply-To: <20000615100940.B489@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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: [On Valenti and the presumed existence of DVD CCA...] >I assume telephone logs and travel records would settle this one. The problem is, this isn't a criminal case. Can we get to such data? Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:10:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22156 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:10:26 -0400 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 NAA22153 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:10:25 -0400 Received: from localhost (sparky@localhost) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA14129 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:12:22 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:11:20 -0500 (CDT) From: sparky X-Sender: sparky@suba01 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hollywood cracks down on Web VCR site In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616100214.00a9c330@cyberpass.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, 16 Jun 2000, James S. Tyre wrote: > "Simon, willingly and knowingly, has built a business based on offering > its customers access > to valuable stolen property," Jack Valenti, president of the Motion > Picture Association of > America, said in a statement today. "One hundred percent of the profits > are made from offering > popular television programs and movies that RecordTV has obtained no > right to copy or display > or have any part in distributing." Hm.. that fever doesn't appear to have helped him any.. sp > > The lawsuit marks the latest move in the film industry's mounting > efforts to block online > business models that it believes take distribution of TV or movies out > of studios' or > broadcasters' hands. > [....] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net > Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) > 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 > Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:12:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22210 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:12:55 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22206 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:12:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GHErg00967 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:14:54 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:14:53 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Declan McCullagh on Valenti deposition In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C4F@mail2.onetouch.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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: > >Garbus asked: "If any system plays a DVD without a license from DVD CCA, >that in your estimation is against the law?" >Replied Valenti: "I believe it's a violation of the law. The law is very >clear and very plain." > >(Doesn't this essentially admit to an illegal tying between the MPAA and the >DVDCCA?) BTW, if he doesn't know of DVD CCA, he should be quite surprised to hear that it has anything to do with getting licences or breaking the law. I would be if I hadn't followed this stuff. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:14:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22331 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:14:51 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22327 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:14:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GHGnr01136 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:16:49 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:16:49 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C50@mail2.onetouch.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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: >You can't copy (for fair use purposes) 2 minutes out of Schindler's >List from a DVD because of the DMCA, but you -can- copy those same >2 minutes from a VHS copy. This is a clear assertion of different >rights to the -same- work based solely upon the medium in which it >has been fixed. Agreed. Appalling. >Has anything like this ever been asserted before digital media >came onto the scene? The only example I know of is the crypto vs. ITAR regulations kind of deal where digital is separated from printed material. Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with access rights. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:23:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22440 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:23:22 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22437 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:23:21 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GHPKQ01481 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:25:20 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:25:20 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <39491FBC.63C3F76@mninter.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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: >Without doing the math, I have significant doubts that the compressed >movie would be intelligble or recognizeable as having come from a DVD >rather than a stream of random MPEG-2 data or deep space radiation (if >there are any encoders that would perform such a compression). Not true. MPEG isn't the epitome of bit efficiency. Think about video conferencing coders which get television quality video feeds down to the 64-128 kbps range. Augment that with Cray level processing and your argument has a problem. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:23:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22450 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:23:36 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22447 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:23:33 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01778 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:25:21 -0500 Message-ID: <394A6252.64E077C0@mninter.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:22:26 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hollywood cracks down on Web VCR site References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616100214.00a9c330@cyberpass.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 > "Simon, willingly and knowingly, has built a business based on offering > its customers access > to valuable stolen property," Jack Valenti, president of the Motion > Picture Association of > America, said in a statement today. q: Mr. Valenti, what did you just say? a: I do not recall having said something. q: Mr. Valenti, have you ever said anything before? a: I cannot draw a legal conclusion to that question. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:25:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22527 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:25:29 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22522 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:25:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GHRRt01536 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:27:27 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:27:27 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <39492056.DDEE2A00@uic.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 Thu, 15 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: >If you were to toss out 21 of 24 frames, you would be left >with program content that changes much more significantly >from frame to frame, and would require far more data per >frame to represent the much larger differences between >frames. > >So you would lose what you thought you were gaining. > >Can anyone with real knowledge of MPEG internals verify >this? To a degree this is true. But short of going twice as fast, we still do not have a problem. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:37:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22658 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:37:56 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22655 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:37:55 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17323 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:39:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13751 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:39:53 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:39:52 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue In-Reply-To: <20000616152027.14754.qmail@web511.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, 16 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Chris Moseng wrote: > > So, has anyone concieved of a license that the MPAA can assert that > > does not violate anti-trust and could be construed as effective > > upon the sale of a DVD? Besides the one that sounds best to us, of > > course. I'm trying to stir the pot. ;) > > I'm trying to think about the authorization model from the MPAA point > of view. Here's a devils advocate argument: > > Authorization to view occurs via the title key. If you legally hold > this, you can view the DVD with our authority. It is however a trade > secret. > > Access to the title key is controlled by the disk, player, and bus > keys. Licenced players are authorized to extract the title key by our > storing the title key under protection of their player key. Consumers > were never authorized to extract this key. In fact, the title key is a > protected trade secret. However, if it is published that widely, then is it really a trade secret? Also, if there is an agreement to allow only MPAA-approved players to access DVDs, then I smell tying. Decideing which players are allowed to view your content is ILLEGAL. There is just no way around this. > > Another arguement: > > Our authorization is "for viewing only". We did not authorize > persistent storage of the decrypted output. Analogy: we invited you > into the theater, not to take the chair home. > Right. But there is no concept of fair use of theater chairs. There is for DVD content, and media shifiting is part of that. > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com/ > sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:44:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22772 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:44:26 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22769 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:44:25 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21326 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:46:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17418 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:46:23 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:46:23 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue In-Reply-To: <394A44A4.9F4DB5E8@uic.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 Fri, 16 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: > sam th wrote: > > There are three possibilites for access-granting: > > > > 1) Purchase of DVD player- this is specifically disclaimed in DVD > > Bryan Taylor replied: > > > 1) Impossible because player manufacturers and DVD CCA are not the > > copyright holders. > > What if they claim that as part of the "secret agreement", the DVDCCA > is granted limited authority by the copyright holders to grant access > to DVD content to the public in the form of licensed DVD players under > the terms of the agreement? (i.e. region coding, no digital out, etc.) > > We don't know the terms of the agreement. Does it matter? Would > such an arrangement have any legal bearing on consumers, given > that the arrangement is secret? > 1) the agreement is secret (and they want to keep it that way) so we cannot be held accountable for not following it. 2) This is *still* illegal tying, but now just by the DVDCCA. If they grant authorization only to specific player manufacturers (not conincdentally the members of said DVDCCA) they are in violation of the standards laid down in US v Paramount. This is going to win the case, folks. :-) sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:46:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22818 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:46:32 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22815 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:46:31 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13286 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:58:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.33.107] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:51:55 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 00 13:51:55 -0500 Message-ID: <003d01bfd7bb$15b98840$0cb0fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: Subject: [dvd-discuss] NY Times links again! Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:48:22 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The NYTimes has another article on linking, with a direct link to the 2600 link list. http://www1.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/06/cyber/cyberlaw/16law.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:49:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22863 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:49:08 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22860 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:49:07 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14378 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:50:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:50:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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 Fri, 16 Jun 2000, sam th wrote: > 2) This is *still* illegal tying, but now just by the DVDCCA. If they > grant authorization only to specific player manufacturers (not > conincdentally the members of said DVDCCA) they are in violation of the > standards laid down in US v Paramount. > > This is going to win the case, folks. :-) Oh? Shall we call Joel Klein, then? ;) Even if we have something that looks very promising, we should continue to look for even more strategies to use - until we win, let's throw everything we've got at the MPAA. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:57:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23383 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:57:47 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23380 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:57:46 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28491 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:59:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24525 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:59:44 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:59:44 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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 Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > > > This is going to win the case, folks. :-) > > Oh? Shall we call Joel Klein, then? ;) By all means. These people make Microsoft look like the Easter Bunny. > > Even if we have something that looks very promising, we should continue to > look for even more strategies to use - until we win, let's throw > everything we've got at the MPAA. > Of course. I'm not advocating not hitting them with everything we've got. But I think authorization/illegal tying could win the case all by itself. They just got waaay too greedy. Let's kill them on it. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 13:57:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23392 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:57:59 -0400 Received: from geulph.frogspace.net (root@[64.6.226.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23389 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:57:57 -0400 Received: from [210.160.35.26] (helo=vaio) by geulph.frogspace.net with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 1330PM-0002DE-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:59:56 -0700 Message-ID: <000901bfd7bc$a8190a20$1a23a0d2@vaio> From: "Robert Wilde" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] Access Authorization Answered! Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:58:27 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Okay, I'm still reading the new deposition from 2600, but check out this: 28 11 Q. What constitutes authorized access? 23 THE WITNESS: I don't have any particular 24 recollection that this issue ever came up. I think 25 the general understanding of all parties was that 29 1 authorized access meant access with the permission 2 of the owner of the material. Beyond that I don't 3 think it was ever discussed. 21 Q. Okay. And in the context of DVDs 22 specifically, does the consumer get authorized 23 access to the material on the DVD by purchasing the 24 DVD? 25 A. No. 30 1 Q. Why is that? Could you explain that? 2 A. In order to obtain authorized access to a 3 DVD, the consumer has to in effect make two 4 purchases. He or she has to buy a D -- the 5 software, a DVD disk. 6 Q. The media? 7 A. The media, and also has to purchase a DVD 8 display device, which is specifically authorized to 9 obtain access to the motion picture in an 10 intelligible form under certain terms and 11 conditions. At least we finally know the MPAA position now. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 14:04:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA23610 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:04:21 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA23607 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:04:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14442 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:05:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:05:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Access Authorization Answered! In-Reply-To: <000901bfd7bc$a8190a20$1a23a0d2@vaio> 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 So does this mean that I (who owns a bunch of DVDs, a DVD-ROM drive and a regular DVD player) can use DeCSS with impunity? This really helps the tying thing too. On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Robert Wilde wrote: > Okay, I'm still reading the new deposition from 2600, but check out this: > > 28 > 11 Q. What constitutes authorized access? > > 23 THE WITNESS: I don't have any particular > 24 recollection that this issue ever came up. I think > 25 the general understanding of all parties was that > 29 > 1 authorized access meant access with the permission > 2 of the owner of the material. Beyond that I don't > 3 think it was ever discussed. > > 21 Q. Okay. And in the context of DVDs > 22 specifically, does the consumer get authorized > 23 access to the material on the DVD by purchasing the > 24 DVD? > 25 A. No. > 30 > 1 Q. Why is that? Could you explain that? > 2 A. In order to obtain authorized access to a > 3 DVD, the consumer has to in effect make two > 4 purchases. He or she has to buy a D -- the > 5 software, a DVD disk. > 6 Q. The media? > 7 A. The media, and also has to purchase a DVD > 8 display device, which is specifically authorized to > 9 obtain access to the motion picture in an > 10 intelligible form under certain terms and > 11 conditions. > > > At least we finally know the MPAA position now. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 14:15:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA23716 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:15:06 -0400 Received: from web512.mail.yahoo.com (web512.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA23713 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:15:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20000616181626.24703.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web512.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:16:26 PDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:16:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 --- Douglas Hudson wrote: > For instance, in NBA v. Motorola (2d Cir. 1997), > http://laws.findlaw.com/2nd/967975.html This is a very good case to scrutinize. The court held that Motorola and STATS have not unlawfully misappropriated NBA's property by transmitting "real-time" NBA game scores and statistics taken from television and radio broadcasts of games in progress. I think it's analysis of the preemption decision process is very pretty clear. To be preempted by section 301 of the Copyright act there are two requirements: 1) Subject Matter Requirement The subject matter requirement is met when the work of authorship being copied or misappropriated 'fall[s] within the ambit of copyright protection.' 2) General Scope Requirement Section 301 "preempts only those state law rights that 'may be abridged by an act which, in and of itself, would infringe one of the exclusive rights' provided by federal copyright law." _____ The district court concluded that the NBA's misappropriation claim was not preempted because, with respect to the underlying games, as opposed to the broadcasts, the subject matter requirement was not met. This theory is dubbed "partial preemption". Winter cited Easterbrook's analys in ProCD regarding the *subject matter requirement* , when it said that the game scores, when taken from copyrighted broadcasts are within the subject matter of copyright. This conclusion actually brings preemption closer, not farther. The offensive part of ProCD is the analysis of other part: the general scope requirement. This often uses with the "extra element test" : it's not in the general scope if there is an extra element. ProCD ruled that a contract was an extra element and derailed the preemption based on a failure of the general scope requirement. Winter mentioned this part in passing, but didn't actually use it or decide anything related. In NBA v. Motorola, the Court said: "Our conclusion, therefore, is that only a narrow 'hot-news' misappropriation claim survives preemption". The key word phrase is "only a narrow", because the precedent actually decreased the surviving non-prempted state law. The district court was over-ruled because the narrowed "hot news" standard was too narrow to accomodate it's analysis. Motorola was found to not violate the narrowed standard. In summary: 1) NBA cites ProCD only for the general framework and subject matter requirment analysis (and set pro-preemption precedents here) 2) NBA is actually a pro preemption case: it narrowed what survives preemption and thereby reversed an anti-preemption ruling > The trouble with Vault v. Quaid Software, Ltd., 847 F.2d 255 > (5th Cir. 1988), is that the DMCA anticircumvention provisions > were written -expressly to overrule it-. Additionally, the > "freedom of contract" crowd has a lot more support now than it > did in 1988. I'm not being a fatalist, I just think that we > shouldn't rely on state law preemption either way, as it is > an unsettled issues. I don't see how the DMCA expressly overrules Vault. I read the legislative record to say that prior RE caselaw was endorsed, which would probably include Vault. If anything the 1201(f) clauses support the idea that reverse engineering is federally protected. I agree that we shouldn't "rely" on preemption (or the invalid contract idea either). But let's not cede it either. The CA case should obviously argue for both the "no contract" and "preempted by Copyright Act" views. The 9th Circuit, which governs CA law, has been rather sypathetic to Step-Saver (the other half of the ProCD conflict) in Arizona Retail Systems and in the more recent Expeditors v. Official Creditors 166 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir 1999) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 14:21:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA23861 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:21:29 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA23858 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:21:28 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10262 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:23:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08670 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:23:27 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:23:26 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Access Authorization Answered! In-Reply-To: <000901bfd7bc$a8190a20$1a23a0d2@vaio> 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, 17 Jun 2000, Robert Wilde wrote: > Okay, I'm still reading the new deposition from 2600, but check out this: > > 28 > 11 Q. What constitutes authorized access? > > 23 THE WITNESS: I don't have any particular > 24 recollection that this issue ever came up. I think > 25 the general understanding of all parties was that > 29 > 1 authorized access meant access with the permission > 2 of the owner of the material. Beyond that I don't > 3 think it was ever discussed. > > 21 Q. Okay. And in the context of DVDs > 22 specifically, does the consumer get authorized > 23 access to the material on the DVD by purchasing the > 24 DVD? > 25 A. No. > 30 > 1 Q. Why is that? Could you explain that? > 2 A. In order to obtain authorized access to a > 3 DVD, the consumer has to in effect make two > 4 purchases. He or she has to buy a D -- the > 5 software, a DVD disk. > 6 Q. The media? > 7 A. The media, and also has to purchase a DVD > 8 display device, which is specifically authorized to > 9 obtain access to the motion picture in an > 10 intelligible form under certain terms and > 11 conditions. > > > At least we finally know the MPAA position now. > Is the defense team reading this? How soon can they write a brief on why the MPAA has dug their own grave? Are the studios so confident that they are willing to admit illegal activity in court depositions? Or do they just not get it? sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 14:41:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA24230 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:41:35 -0400 Received: from web510.mail.yahoo.com (web510.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA24163 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:36:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20000616183726.21671.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:37:26 PDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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 --- John Schulien wrote: > sam th wrote: > > There are three possibilites for access-granting: > > > > 1) Purchase of DVD player- this is specifically disclaimed in DVD > > Bryan Taylor replied: > > > 1) Impossible because player manufacturers and DVD CCA are not the > > copyright holders. > > What if they claim that as part of the "secret agreement", the DVDCCA > is granted limited authority by the copyright holders to grant access > to DVD content to the public in the form of licensed DVD players > under the terms of the agreement? (i.e. region coding, no > digital out, etc.) But the player licence states you are not getting access authority from them. There is also the old problem with the fact that multiple copyright owners may share access control measures. The DMCA basically doesn't make sense when you take this into account. > We don't know the terms of the agreement. Does it matter? Would > such an arrangement have any legal bearing on consumers, given > that the arrangement is secret? I don't know if you can be "secretly authorized" without knowing it. You would then believe you were breaking the law when you intended to access, even though you wouldn't be breaking the law. This reminds me of another point though: under the "combined" theory, I still access with authority, even using DeCSS, if I own both a DVD and a player. I have never contractually restricted my access to only use one method. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 14:55:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03447 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:55:26 -0400 Received: from geulph.frogspace.net ([64.6.226.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03444 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:55:23 -0400 Received: from [210.160.35.26] (helo=vaio) by geulph.frogspace.net with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 1331I2-0005t4-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:56:27 -0700 Message-ID: <000901bfd7c4$8ce457c0$1a23a0d2@vaio> From: "Robert Wilde" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] More MPAA Opinions on Fair Use Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:56:10 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's another excerpt from the Attaway deposition on 2600. 142 6 A. That is a truism, yes. If it's available 7 only on DVDs, then it's not available on something 8 else. 9 Q. And does that constitute a substantial -- 10 A. Substantial impairment of fair use? 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. Not necessarily. 13 Q. Why not? 14 A. Because it could mean that in isolated 15 circumstances, some people might be prevented from 16 exercising fair use, but in the overall scheme of 17 things, which is what I believe the Copyright Office 18 is directed to take into account, it doesn't amount 19 to a substantial impairment. At least the MPAA is honest: in the "overall scheme of things" your fair use rights don't really matter. Thankfully, for the time being, that's only their opinion - let's hope Kaplan decides otherwise. One point. While, at present time, the amount of exclusive material available on DVDs may be limited, that will not always be the case. DVDs cost significantly less to produce than video tapes. Selling a single product in multiple formats is an added expense for distributors and sales outlets. The studios will have every incentive (especially if they can effectively remove fair use, force users to watch commercials, and control regional distribution) of releasing only DVDs in the future. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 14:58:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03505 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:58:08 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03502 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:58:02 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11129 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.33.107] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:03:29 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 00 15:03:29 -0500 Message-ID: <005a01bfd7c5$14bca620$0cb0fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Access Authorization Answered! Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:00:00 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tying is a big deal, but is awfully hard to prove. > > 2 A. In order to obtain authorized access to a > > 3 DVD, the consumer has to in effect make two > > 4 purchases. He or she has to buy a D -- the > > 5 software, a DVD disk. > > 6 Q. The media? > > 7 A. The media, and also has to purchase a DVD > > 8 display device, which is specifically authorized to > > 9 obtain access to the motion picture in an > > 10 intelligible form under certain terms and > > 11 conditions. The MPAA would interpret this as the licensing of the CSS intellectual property (patents, trade secrets, etc) to those who would make a DVD player. In order for this to be a violation of the Sherman Act, one would have to show (1) market power in the tying market, (2) actual tying conduct, including the scope of the tied market, (3) antitrust injury flowing from the illegal tie, and (4) no intellectual property to "privilege" the licensing regime, and no 1201 privilege. (1) Market power What is the market? Movies? DVDs? DVD-movies? DVD-movies-with-CSS-encryption? Movies distributed for home viewing via any media (VHS, laserdisk, DVD, cable, broadcast)? While it would be difficult for the MPAA to argue it didn't have market power in the movie industry, if the market is defined in their way, they can short-circuit the case. Example 1: if the market is for DVDs, then the MPAA can say, well, not all DVDs are encrypted with CSS, and you can get games on DVDs, etc., so we have no market power in the DVD market. Example 2: if the market is for movies, then the MPAA will say there are a number of ways to view a movie (VHS, DVD, cable, broadcast, theater), so there is no market power over all of movies because of licensing of one encryption regime to one distribution format. Example 3:movies on DVD, because (1) the MPAA is claiming DVD movies have special problems (hence assumedly special benefits) because of their near-perfect quality. (2) Tying conduct Assuming MPAA has market power for DVD movies, it has tied that power to the DVD player market through licensing CSS et al. to player manufacturers. If this license is for valid intellectual property (patents, copyrighted code, trade secrets) then it is enforceable in the courts. Someone has created an unlicensed DeCSS device necessary to create an unlicensed player. This is OK only if (1) there are no patents covering DeCSS, and (2) either the device was independently created or legally RE'd. There's the California case. If it is patented, then the tied market must be a "staple" good. Is the market for DVD players a staple? (3) Who is injured by the tying conduct? Creators of unauthorized DVD players. The LiViD group, MoRE, have the clearest "antitrust" standing because they have suffered the injury. What about 2600? It would have to be his inability to practice his fair use rights, and his inability to use DeCSS to that end, with some copyright misuse by the MPAA sprinkled on the side. Whether this is enough for standing, or a mere indirect consumer injury not allowing the suit, I have no idea. (4) Privileges If DVD players come under a patent, then it is harder to show tying. However, collusion between the owners of the patent and the owners of the movies, in a "cross-licensing" arrangement as is likely between MPAA and DVDCCA, where both combine their IP solely to control a third group (manufacturers of DVDs) may be "pretextual" enough to escape the IP privilege to tie. Then, there is the copyright owner's exclusive right of distribution. Sony can say (although it has no reason to) that when you buy a sony VHS movie, you can ONLY WATCH IT ON A SONY VCR. Similarly, the MPAA could say your license for your copy of Austin Powers on DVD only reaches "approved" DVD players. Its not clear whether this is within their power or not, but it would be a difficulty in proving up an antitrust case. Then, there is the DMCA, in17 usc 1201, which appears to give copyright holders the right to apply access controls. They will also argue this gives them a legislative exemption to the Sherman Act, as it creates a new exclusive right to access, hence is protected from antitrust scrutiny. --- Result: antitrust is a bit harder to show than on first pass. However, none of this bars a showing of copyright or technological measure misuse, so long as the DMCA isn't read broadly. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 15:11:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03743 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:11:57 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03740 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:11:56 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07055 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:13:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09541 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:13:54 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:13:54 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Access Authorization Answered! In-Reply-To: <005a01bfd7c5$14bca620$0cb0fea9@oemcomputer> 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, 16 Jun 2000, Doug Hudson wrote: > Tying is a big deal, but is awfully hard to prove. > --- > > Result: antitrust is a bit harder to show than on first pass. > All of the snipped text is correct, and would be unfortunate if it was what we had to prove. But we don't. What the MPAA is doing is "tying" under the defintion in US vs Paramount, referencing Morton Salt Co. among other cases. This standard is practically met just by that comment (at least by my reading). See my very long (and earlier referenced) post on the subject. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 15:19:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03856 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:19:07 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03853 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:19:06 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08857 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:21:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <394A70FE.318B5D9E@uic.edu> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:25:03 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is encrypted material copyrightable? 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 don't recall this question being discussed here. Is encrypted material copyrightable, or should it be? It would seem to me that it fails all of the tests. An encrypted data stream is, by design and definition, not expressive in any way. It is also not creative. It is, by design, in and of itself, opaque and useless. Unlike other copyrighted material, encrypted works are designed to resist entering the public domain under any circumstances. What public benefit accrues from the grant of copyright to encrypted material? Has any court addressed this issue? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 15:29:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04013 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:29:33 -0400 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 PAA04009 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:29:31 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-27.suba.com [206.69.121.219]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA19665 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:31:24 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Access Authorization Answered! Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: <000501bfd7c9$641ec640$c17945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <005a01bfd7c5$14bca620$0cb0fea9@oemcomputer> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Doug wrote: > > Tying is a big deal, but is awfully hard to prove. [snip] isn't it easier/possible to show that this allows content providers to legistlate fair use, or something along those lines? sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 16:00:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04372 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:00:31 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04369 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:00:30 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03525 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:12:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.33.173] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:06:01 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 00 16:06:01 -0500 Message-ID: <00c501bfd7cd$d095a9c0$0cb0fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Access Authorization Answered! Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:02:34 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > All of the snipped text is correct, and would be unfortunate if it was > what we had to prove. But we don't. What the MPAA is doing is "tying" > under the defintion in US vs Paramount, referencing Morton Salt Co. among > other cases. This standard is practically met just by that comment (at > least by my reading). See my very long (and earlier referenced) post on > the subject. Morton Salt and US v. Paramount have been nuanced and limited by time and a number of judges from Chicago. Unfortunately, I really don't think it is as simple as saying this is just like this and that old case. Yes, bundling of movies was unlawful tying. (Paramount). Yes, bundling a patented device with a forced purchase of a staple good like salt is an antitrust violation. (Morton Salt). But even the very (now even more limited, see 35 USC 271(d)) holding of Morton Salt is under attack from people like Easterbrook et al., and the problems of market definition, antitrust injury, antitrust standing, patent and copyright exclusive rights, and legislative privilege under the DMCA, are all real issues that have to be resolved (or at least considered) before a Sherman Act challenge. Realize even if successful, a Sherman Act challenge might not make DeCSS lawful. A copyright misuse challenge might, but a Sherman Act challenge probably won't. I bet the MPAA has a bunch of associates picking out caselaw on a number of these points; I just wanted to bring them to your attention, and I realize its a more legal issue than a technical issue. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 16:03:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04543 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:03:11 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04534 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:02:36 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05150 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.33.173] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:08:07 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 00 16:08:07 -0500 Message-ID: <00cc01bfd7ce$1bda7640$0cb0fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: <394A70FE.318B5D9E@uic.edu> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is encrypted material copyrightable? Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:04:32 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > I don't recall this question being discussed here. > > Is encrypted material copyrightable, or should it be? It would seem to > me > that it fails all of the tests. An encrypted data stream is, by design > and definition, not expressive in any way. It is also not creative. > It is, by design, in and of itself, opaque and useless. Unlike other > copyrighted material, encrypted works are designed to resist entering > the > public domain under any circumstances. What public benefit accrues > from the grant of copyright to encrypted material? While I don't remember the case offhand, I'm pretty sure you can invent your own language, write a book in that language, and copyright it. There were old codebooks that were copyrighted, and those copyrights held up in court. I don't have the casenames on me, however. So, yes, I'm pretty sure you can copyright encrypted material, so long as it is a work of authorship. -Doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 16:04:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04621 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:04:00 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04618 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:04:00 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06411 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:16:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.33.173] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:09:30 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 00 16:09:30 -0500 Message-ID: <00cf01bfd7ce$4d94dea0$0cb0fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: <000501bfd7c9$641ec640$c17945ce@bugbug> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Access Authorization Answered! Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:06:00 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Tying is a big deal, but is awfully hard to prove. > isn't it easier/possible to show that this allows content providers to > legistlate fair use, or something along those lines? First you have to decide what is illegal about allowing individuals to "legislate fair use." What might be illegal is giving them a federal statutory hammer which violates the first amendment. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 16:04:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04679 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:04:43 -0400 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04676 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:04:42 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inij6k.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.76.212]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA20215 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006162006.QAA20215@blount.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:04:35 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction In-Reply-To: <39494624.2B3C66B2@cdpage.com> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C4F@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000615145948.A30299@thud.reric.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 Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of the Motion to Vacate the Injunction, June 14, 2000: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rb2.htm (84K) Including: Reply Declaration of Frank Stevenson Declaration of Edward Hernstadt Reply Declaration of Chris Mesong Reply Declaration of Olegario Craig Exhibit 1 to Reply Declaration of Olegario Craig Reply Declaration of Matthew Pavlovich Reply Declaration of Emmanuel Goldstein From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 16:28:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04792 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:28:56 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04789 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:28:55 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:30:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:30:56 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction In-Reply-To: <200006162006.QAA20215@blount.mail.mindspring.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 I personally like the thorough slaughtering of the miracle 7 minute transfer. Good job everyone, and thanks for all the help. Regards, Matthew R. Pavlovich On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of the Motion to Vacate the > Injunction, June 14, 2000: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rb2.htm (84K) > > Including: > > Reply Declaration of Frank Stevenson > Declaration of Edward Hernstadt > Reply Declaration of Chris Mesong > Reply Declaration of Olegario Craig > Exhibit 1 to Reply Declaration of Olegario Craig > Reply Declaration of Matthew Pavlovich > Reply Declaration of Emmanuel Goldstein > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 16:39:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05131 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:39:59 -0400 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 QAA05128 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:39:58 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-59.suba.com [206.69.121.251]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA22478 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:41:57 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:41:28 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01bfd7d3$3f2f50c0$c17945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Matt wrote: > > I personally like the thorough slaughtering of the miracle 7 minute > transfer. Good job everyone, and thanks for all the help. > > Regards, > Matthew R. Pavlovich I don't normally speak for everyone, but I think I safely can here when I say: Our pleasure. sp > > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > > > Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of the Motion to Vacate the > > Injunction, June 14, 2000: > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rb2.htm (84K) > > > > Including: > > > > Reply Declaration of Frank Stevenson > > Declaration of Edward Hernstadt > > Reply Declaration of Chris Mesong > > Reply Declaration of Olegario Craig > > Exhibit 1 to Reply Declaration of Olegario Craig > > Reply Declaration of Matthew Pavlovich > > Reply Declaration of Emmanuel Goldstein > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 16:54:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05268 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:54:28 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA05265 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:54:27 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:00:00 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DBA@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:59:58 -0400 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 Comment 1: I often watch cspan on the web, they offer 100kbs video feeds. The picture is adequate for watching a talk show, speech, or congressional debate, but it would not be adequate at all for a movie where good stereo (at least) sound is required, and the picture detail is a huge part of the experience. My opinion, and this is not based on any measurement, just experience, is that 100kbs is about 1/2 of TV. Comment 2: I tried to pirate a movie with imesh to see how well it would work. >From the T1 line, it took me 2 days to get half of Office Space (being a computer person, this is the most logical movie to pirate). It was 141 Mb long, and it did not play for some reason. I haven't had time to troubleshoot. (The reason it took 2 days is that imesh queues and occasionally will retry the transfer until the file is available. I have no idea what kind of a transfer rate I got because imesh does not keep statistics on that.) -----Original Message----- From: Sampo A Syreeni [mailto:ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 1:25 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: >Without doing the math, I have significant doubts that the compressed >movie would be intelligble or recognizeable as having come from a DVD >rather than a stream of random MPEG-2 data or deep space radiation (if >there are any encoders that would perform such a compression). Not true. MPEG isn't the epitome of bit efficiency. Think about video conferencing coders which get television quality video feeds down to the 64-128 kbps range. Augment that with Cray level processing and your argument has a problem. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 16:57:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05366 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:57:58 -0400 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 QAA05356 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:57:56 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-59.suba.com [206.69.121.251]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA23294 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:59:56 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:59:27 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01bfd7d5$c2100960$c17945ce@bugbug> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <200006162006.QAA20215@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is great. It's hitting all the buttons. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of John Young > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 3:05 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction > > > Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of the Motion to Vacate the > Injunction, June 14, 2000: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rb2.htm (84K) > > Including: > > Reply Declaration of Frank Stevenson > Declaration of Edward Hernstadt > Reply Declaration of Chris Mesong > Reply Declaration of Olegario Craig > Exhibit 1 to Reply Declaration of Olegario Craig > Reply Declaration of Matthew Pavlovich > Reply Declaration of Emmanuel Goldstein > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 17:03:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05482 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:03:24 -0400 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA05479 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:03:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20000616210453.29619.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:04:53 PDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:04:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction 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 Guys I thought this set of documents was damn strong. Kudos to everyone that participated. --- John Young wrote: > Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of the Motion to Vacate the > Injunction, June 14, 2000: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-rb2.htm (84K) > > Including: > > Reply Declaration of Frank Stevenson > Declaration of Edward Hernstadt > Reply Declaration of Chris Mesong > Reply Declaration of Olegario Craig > Exhibit 1 to Reply Declaration of Olegario Craig > Reply Declaration of Matthew Pavlovich > Reply Declaration of Emmanuel Goldstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 17:04:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05525 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:04:28 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05522 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:04:27 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:10:00 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DBB@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:09:59 -0400 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 The counterargument to this is that the DMCA allows this kind of tying as a special exception -- it is, after all, a new law, and new laws tend to modify old ones. As the plaintiffs said the DMCA gives them new rights they did not have before. -----Original Message----- From: sam th [mailto:sam@uchicago.edu] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 1:40 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue However, if it is published that widely, then is it really a trade secret? Also, if there is an agreement to allow only MPAA-approved players to access DVDs, then I smell tying. Decideing which players are allowed to view your content is ILLEGAL. There is just no way around this. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 17:06:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05596 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:06:08 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05593 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:06:07 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:11:40 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DBC@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:11:30 -0400 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 Remember also, this is a preponderance of the evidence case, not a reasonable doubt case. -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Stratton [mailto:cpt@gryphon.auspice.net] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 1:51 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Even if we have something that looks very promising, we should continue to look for even more strategies to use - until we win, let's throw everything we've got at the MPAA. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 17:19:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05757 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:19:50 -0400 Received: from web512.mail.yahoo.com (web512.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA05754 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:19:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20000616212120.19767.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web512.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:21:20 PDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:21:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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 --- Leland Ray wrote: > > The counterargument to this is that the DMCA allows this kind > of tying as a special exception -- it is, after all, a new > law, and new laws tend to modify old ones. > > As the plaintiffs said the DMCA gives them new rights they > did not have before. I think new law only modify old ones if the result is unavoidable. In other words it either has to say so or it has to be impossible to conclude otherwise. I don't see that as being the case here. There is nothing in 1201 that indicates it is an endorsement of tying players to movies. It would be easy to interpret 1201 as not speaking to this and thereby not modifying it. There is certainly nothing in the legislative record that says they intended to encourage what they otherwise take pains to discourage. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 17:57:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06093 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:57:38 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06090 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:57:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15752 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:59:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:59:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction In-Reply-To: <20000616210453.29619.qmail@web513.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 For the Garbus technical nits file: gigabyte would be abbreviated GB. I realize that most of us know this, but perhaps it can be communicated to Garbus & co. (if it's felt to be important) b = bit; the atomic unit of computers B = byte; composed of (in this day and age) 8 bits k = kilo = 1024; a kB is of course, eight times at large as a kb. M = mega = 1048576; properly 1M = 1024k, approximated 1M = 1000k G = giga = 1073741824; 1G = 1024M = 1048576k, approx. 1G = 1000M These numbers look extremely unnatural but they make sense: k = 2^10; M = 2^20; G = 2^30. Everything on computers for many years now has derived from 2's (i.e. the two states of a switch; off (0) and on (1)) An example: So the 7GB file is 7516192768 bytes. (a vulgar 7GB file is about 6.5 real GB) A 56kb modem, which is very commonplace, would ideally provide about 57600b, which is 7200B. At this speed the file would take (again, this is in a perfect world - I've never seen speeds like this on a 56K modem) just over twelve days, by my calculations, to be downloaded. I'm sure that spending seven minutes with Schumann must feel like twelve days, but... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 17:58:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06189 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:58:41 -0400 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06186 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:58:40 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inig11.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.64.33]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA19899 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:00:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006162200.SAA19899@blount.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:58:06 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction In-Reply-To: <20000616210453.29619.qmail@web513.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 Yes, this is a most impressive set of statements. And comparable to those prepared for the landmark Bernstein, Karn and Junger encryption cases, which broke and continue to break, new ground in the ever-changing interplay between technological invention and law. They, too, benefited from extremely knowledgeable technologists who performed excellently in providing unprecedented information about how things work well beyond the understanding of merely intelligent consumers. Really swell reading, swell argument, technological and legal. About as good as it gets, and in my opinion superior to that of USA v. Microsoft, two behemoths strutting power moves, still threatening MAD as though representing hordes of believers. Sweeter not least because one side is a rich lumbering, ever-more confused empire, the other not identifiable in dying venerable terms of chairman, CEO, head of, in charge of, and such nyms of over-stuffed significance. Where the hell does a numeric 2600 fit in the hierarchy of alphabetic global importance? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 18:06:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06351 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:06:15 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA06348 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:06:14 -0400 Message-ID: <20000616220745.9302.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:07:45 PDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Access Authorization Answered! 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 --- Doug Hudson wrote: > Tying is a big deal, but is awfully hard to prove. The concept of misuse of copyright is another route here. It's related and depends on anti-competetive results. > In order for this to be a violation of the Sherman Act, one would > have to show (1) market power in the tying market, (2) actual > tying conduct, including the scope of the tied market, (3) antitrust > injury flowing from the illegal tie, and (4) no intellectual > property to "privilege" the licensing regime, and no 1201 privilege. Do you have some reference cases that go in to this? I want to read up on this. What section of the law covers tying? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 18:32:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06595 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:32:17 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06592 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:32:15 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c01-091.015.popsite.net [64.24.72.91]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA10849 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616151743.04e9cd80@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:32:06 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? In-Reply-To: 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 11:34 AM 6/16/2000 -0500, sparky wrote: >I just read that FAT32 doesn't support files larger than 4 gig. > >is this *true*? Yes. Technically, 4GB less two bytes. http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/win98/Reskit/Part2/wrkc10.asp >if yes, another difficulty with the "downloading movies over the internet" >hypothesis, and a big one. "Why can't I download this 5 Gig [ie very >small] movie?" NTFS has no such limit? (2TB limit.) http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/nt5help/Enterprise/en/choosing_between_NTFS_FAT_and_FAT32.htm (I'm a lawyer, not a tech guy, but the question interested me. If this doesn't cut it as an answer, feel free to savage me. ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 18:37:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06746 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:37:35 -0400 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 SAA06743 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:37:33 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00589 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:52:23 -0700 From: Jim Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:51:21 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616151743.04e9cd80@cyberpass.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616151743.04e9cd80@cyberpass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0006161452230M.25754@www.rjmconsulting.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'd agree here. Just because one of the more commonly used filesystems has that limit doesn't mean that others may. NTFS doesn't, the UNIX FS model doesn't, and I can't thinking of many more that DO this day and age. That's more an argument for the inferiority of popular MS products than anything else. --Russell On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, you wrote: > At 11:34 AM 6/16/2000 -0500, sparky wrote: > >I just read that FAT32 doesn't support files larger than 4 gig. > > > >is this *true*? > > Yes. Technically, 4GB less two bytes. > http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/win98/Reskit/Part2/wrkc10.asp > > > >if yes, another difficulty with the "downloading movies over the internet" > >hypothesis, and a big one. "Why can't I download this 5 Gig [ie very > >small] movie?" > > NTFS has no such limit? (2TB limit.) > http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/nt5help/Enterprise/en/choosing_between_NTFS_FAT_and_FAT32.htm > > (I'm a lawyer, not a tech guy, but the question interested me. If this > doesn't cut it as an answer, feel free to savage me. ;-) > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net > Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) > 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 > Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org -- Jim 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 Fri Jun 16 18:42:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06884 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:42:24 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06881 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:42:23 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1334qe-0006JG-00; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:44:24 -0700 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:44:24 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? Message-ID: <20000616154424.L15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616151743.04e9cd80@cyberpass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616151743.04e9cd80@cyberpass.net>; from j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 03:32:06PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu James S. Tyre writes: > At 11:34 AM 6/16/2000 -0500, sparky wrote: > >I just read that FAT32 doesn't support files larger than 4 gig. > > > >is this *true*? > > Yes. Technically, 4GB less two bytes. > http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/win98/Reskit/Part2/wrkc10.asp > > >if yes, another difficulty with the "downloading movies over the internet" > >hypothesis, and a big one. "Why can't I download this 5 Gig [ie very > >small] movie?" > > NTFS has no such limit? (2TB limit.) > http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/nt5help/Enterprise/en/choosing_between_NTFS_FAT_and_FAT32.htm Also, it should be pretty easy to write HTTP clients and servers which treat a series of physical files as one big logical file. Now I feel tempted to write a "file descriptor multiplexor" library that does this. Hmmmm. Remember that those pirates who live in ships with Fast Ethernet all write C libraries to make their HTTP agents work around the limitations of the filesystems in their copies of Windows 98. So we need not fear any technical limitations in widespread operating systems which might make it harder for them to copy movies illegally. -- 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 Jun 16 19:10:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07381 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:10:35 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA07378 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:10:35 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10745 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.33.224] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:16:03 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 00 19:16:03 -0500 Message-ID: <001601bfd7e8$5ba6b620$0cb0fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: <20000616220745.9302.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Access Authorization Answered! Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:12:31 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > The concept of misuse of copyright is another route here. It's related > and depends on anti-competetive results. We've talked about this before, and the applicability of traditional copyright misuse to technological measures. If the access controls (just like a contract, or a lawsuit) are used to enforce rights the copyright holder simply does not have, the holder's right to enforce the copyright is -suspended- until the misuse is remedied. I think this pretty clearly applies to this case. > > In order for this to be a violation of the Sherman Act, one would > > have to show (1) market power in the tying market, (2) actual > > tying conduct, including the scope of the tied market, (3) antitrust > > injury flowing from the illegal tie, and (4) no intellectual > > property to "privilege" the licensing regime, and no 1201 privilege. Tying is considered a traditional Sherman Act violation. s 1 covers agreements in restraint of trade, s 2 covers monopolization. Tying can be under either section, depending on whether it is an agreement between firms (MPAA and DVDCCA), or one organization acting alone (MPAA). The quinticential introduction is Areeda, Antitrust Analysis, pp. 686-769, or Morgan, Antitrust Law, or Posner's textbook. The Areeda antitrust treatise (not the textbook above) has multiple volumes dedicated to tying. The two most recent cases on tying are Jefferson Parish Hospital v. Hyde, 466 US 2 (1984) and Kodak v. ITS, 504 US 451 (1992). Read them to get a sense of the modern view of tying. While Morton Salt is still good law, it is limited in its application to patents by 35 USC 271(d), Paramount is less credible, as the Court's analysis has "matured" significantly since that case. The Microsoft appeal will hinge on interpretations of Jefferson Parish, and their applicability to software and internet technology. If you read Judge Jackson's findings of fact, you can see the tension between traditional tying and the very deferential "rule of reason" approach by the DC circuit in their 1998 Microsoft decision (although that decision was explicitly decided on the terms of a consent decree, not on the Sherman Act.) Skim the major pleadings and decisions in MS and you'll see all the recent tying cases. [IANALY]. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 19:23:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07537 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:23:16 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA07534 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:23:15 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15245 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.33.224] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:28:39 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 00 19:28:39 -0500 Message-ID: <001d01bfd7ea$1eaf7e80$0cb0fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: <200006162200.SAA19899@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:25:11 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It is a powerful motion, and amazing in both strength and brevity. Wow. My only concern: by making such strong statements about DeCSS and piracy uses, would "one" example later found by the plaintiffs be deadly? > Yes, this is a most impressive set of statements. And comparable to those > prepared for the landmark Bernstein, Karn and Junger encryption cases, > which broke and continue to break, new ground in the ever-changing > interplay between technological invention and law. They, too, benefited > from extremely knowledgeable technologists who performed excellently > in providing unprecedented information about how things work well > beyond the understanding of merely intelligent consumers. > > Really swell reading, swell argument, technological and legal. About as > good as it gets, and in my opinion superior to that of USA v. Microsoft, > two behemoths strutting power moves, still threatening MAD as though > representing hordes of believers. In MS the parties were arguing past each other--they weren't even arguing the same case. The government was arguing about anticompetitive acts, while Microsoft was almost entirely arguing about limitations of law. The MPAA here is caught in its own momentum of arguing a single-minded case. As they catch on, though, they will shift gears. That momentum could still crush the defendant. Heck, they could sue this list, because some of the discussions have included instructions on how to circumvent access controls, and discussions of how to circumvent hardware recognition of actual DVD drives. That's how broad the DMCA appears to be. > Sweeter not least because one side is a rich lumbering, ever-more confused > empire, the other not identifiable in dying venerable terms of chairman, > CEO, head of, in charge of, and such nyms of over-stuffed significance. > Where the hell does a numeric 2600 fit in the hierarchy of alphabetic > global importance? Traditionally, before any alphabetical characters. In reality, like France. -doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 19:27:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07701 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:27:13 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA07698 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:27:12 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id TAA04892 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:31:38 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:25:04 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:24:32 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id TAA07699 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >>> "Doug Hudson" 06/16/00 07:25PM >>> It is a powerful motion, and amazing in both strength and brevity. Wow. My only concern: by making such strong statements about DeCSS and piracy uses, would "one" example later found by the plaintiffs be deadly? > Yes, this is a most impressive set of statements. And comparable to those > prepared for the landmark Bernstein, Karn and Junger encryption cases, > which broke and continue to break, new ground in the ever-changing > interplay between technological invention and law. They, too, benefited > from extremely knowledgeable technologists who performed excellently > in providing unprecedented information about how things work well > beyond the understanding of merely intelligent consumers. > > Really swell reading, swell argument, technological and legal. About as > good as it gets, and in my opinion superior to that of USA v. Microsoft, > two behemoths strutting power moves, still threatening MAD as though > representing hordes of believers. In MS the parties were arguing past each other--they weren't even arguing the same case. The government was arguing about anticompetitive acts, while Microsoft was almost entirely arguing about limitations of law. The MPAA here is caught in its own momentum of arguing a single-minded case. As they catch on, though, they will shift gears. That momentum could still crush the defendant. Heck, they could sue this list, because some of the discussions have included instructions on how to circumvent access controls, and discussions of how to circumvent hardware recognition of actual DVD drives. That's how broad the DMCA appears to be. > Sweeter not least because one side is a rich lumbering, ever-more confused > empire, the other not identifiable in dying venerable terms of chairman, > CEO, head of, in charge of, and such nyms of over-stuffed significance. > Where the hell does a numeric 2600 fit in the hierarchy of alphabetic > global importance? Traditionally, before any alphabetical characters. In reality, like France. -doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 19:52:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA08056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:52:14 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA08053 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:52:13 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c01-091.015.popsite.net [64.24.72.91]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA17874 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616164300.04d60f00@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:51:21 -0700 To: From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction In-Reply-To: <001d01bfd7ea$1eaf7e80$0cb0fea9@oemcomputer> References: <200006162200.SAA19899@blount.mail.mindspring.net> 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 07:25 PM 6/16/2000 -0400, Doug Hudson wrote: >It is a powerful motion, and amazing in both strength and brevity. Wow. Agreed. >My only concern: by making such strong statements about DeCSS and >piracy uses, would "one" example later found by the plaintiffs be deadly? That goes into the "we'll cross that bridge ..." category. Remember, this is a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction, if the plaintiffs don't already have the evidence, what is the likelihood that they will by the hearing, or even the trial date? (Only about 5 weeks away, if it holds.) Also, the statements are accurate based on what we know of the evidence as it exists today. If the evidence changes, then the argument is modified accordingly. This sort of mid-case adjustment is made by lawyers all the time. An isolated incident likely would not be a killer, though of course (theoretical) widespread incidents don't help. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 20:59:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA08485 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:59:46 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA08482 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:59:44 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1336zV-0006fb-00; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:01:41 -0700 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:01:41 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] P. 51, Jacobsen first deposition Message-ID: <20000616180141.P15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 22 Q. Other than the broadband lines, the 23 T1 lines, the T3 lines or the DSL, or the regular 24 telephone lines, do you know of any other method of 25 transmission of deCSS to unscramble DVDs? The defendants' lawyers really need some improvement in their terminology. Here the question was basically "what ways could people transmit a decrypted movie to one another?", to which the correct answer is "in principle, any way they can communicate at all", for which the defense ends up wanting a list of particular examples. But that's not how the question was asked. -- 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 Jun 16 20:59:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA08493 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:59:57 -0400 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 UAA08490 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:59:56 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04461; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:01:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:01:57 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006170101.VAA04461@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <20000615203323.D15588@zork.net> References: <20000616032123.14636.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth David Schoen wrote: >5) Intuition (the "looks legit" test, or the "Circuit City vs. German >warez sites as a source for DVD technology" argument): a reasonable >consumer would never assume that DeCSS was legal, because of the weird >way its authors' pseudonyms are capitalized. The location where tools based on the key code in DeCSS will one day be next to impossible for most people to determine. One day the CSS decryption code will hopefull be imbedded in programs like LiViD and even included in several OS distributions. I have never been much of a fan of pseudonyms. I think if you want to be take seriously, you should use your real name. However, I do realize they are sometime necessary. Would the above argument make stories written by Mark Twain (a pseudonym) appear to be illegal by reasonable consumers? Also, and perhaps more related to DVDs, how many actors use a stage name different from their real name? -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 21:18:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA08785 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:18:59 -0400 Received: from web510.mail.yahoo.com (web510.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA08782 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:18:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20000617011844.9164.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:18:44 PDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:18:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Paid Experts vs Honest Experts 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 One thing that just occured to me that people should do when they make declarations is state that you are not being paid if that is the case. Anyone want to confess that they would think twice about saying exactly what Schumann said for $325/hr ? That could make getting grilled by lawyers all day seem pretty fun. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 21:28:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09003 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:28:46 -0400 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 VAA09000 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:28:45 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04573; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:30:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:30:44 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006170130.VAA04573@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <20000616093856.A518@localhost> References: <39498E6B.4ACE5E76@mninter.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: >Right. Congress intended to abolish the idea of publication, thus >rendering first-sale meaningless. Because the word 'publication' doesn't >appear in art.1, sect. 8, it is within Congress' power to abolish >publication. Isn't the opposite true? That congress, and the rest of the USG, is prohibited from doing anything beyond the powers explicity granted in the constitution. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 21:35:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09132 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:35:02 -0400 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 VAA09129 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:35:01 -0400 Received: from travel-net.com (trj1.travel-net.com [207.176.160.1]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28289 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:37:12 -0400 Message-ID: <394AD63C.1F294F3E@travel-net.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:37:00 -0400 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Paid Experts vs Honest Experts References: <20000617011844.9164.qmail@web510.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 Well you have to be careful here. Some expert witnesses are truthful and honestly believe what they are testifying about. Its sometimes necessary to pay someone simply because they stand to lose money by not working elsewhere. In addition, if its their normal billing rate, it means that they do have some standing in whatever community they are in. A good example would be Dave Farber. I wouldnt dream of NOT paying him if I wanted him as an expert witness in anything I was involved in. But no one would dream of attacking his credibility simply because he was paid. He's a very busy man and it is his business after all. Bryan Taylor wrote: > > One thing that just occured to me that people should do when they make > declarations is state that you are not being paid if that is the case. > > Anyone want to confess that they would think twice about saying exactly > what Schumann said for $325/hr ? That could make getting grilled by > lawyers all day seem pretty fun. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com/ -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 21:44:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09217 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:44:57 -0400 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA09214 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:44:56 -0400 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA14299 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:44:37 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20743; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:43:38 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: 16 Jun 2000 18:43:28 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 14 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8iel40$k86$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <39491FBC.63C3F76@mninter.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article , Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > Not true. MPEG isn't the epitome of bit efficiency. Think about video > conferencing coders which get television quality video feeds down to the > 64-128 kbps range. Augment that with Cray level processing and your argument > has a problem. 1. Video conferencing has much lower quality video, so much higher compression rates are possible for video conferencing than you'd expect to find in DVD-quality movies. 2. Video conferencing implementations typically exploit the fact that your entire video consists of a single talking head, and talking heads don't move much, so much higher compression rates are possible for video conferencing than you'd expect to find in DVD-quality movies. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 21:52:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09387 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:52:18 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA09384 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:52:17 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1337oR-0006lU-00; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:54:19 -0700 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:54:19 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000616185419.Q15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <39491FBC.63C3F76@mninter.net> <8iel40$k86$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <8iel40$k86$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from daw@cs.berkeley.edu on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 06:43:28PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu David A. Wagner writes: > 2. Video conferencing implementations typically exploit the fact that > your entire video consists of a single talking head, and talking heads > don't move much, and their backgrounds don't move _at all_! Still cameras are another benefit for compression. Most video conferences don't have any pans, zooms, or cuts; I'll wait for a video conference that includes a chase scene with explosions. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 21:52:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09395 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:52:23 -0400 Received: from abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.121]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA09392 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:52:21 -0400 Received: from blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu [169.229.3.195]) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA14330 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:52:02 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20799; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:51:03 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David A. Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Audio Date: 16 Jun 2000 18:50:54 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 4 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8ielhu$k9s$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <394A4F57.939B5744@uic.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Blaming DeCSS for the delay of the DVD Audio roll-out is like blaming Ralph Nader for the fact that people were dying in car crashes left and right. Blaming the messenger may be a time-honored tradition, but that doesn't make it any more accurate. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 22:06:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA09664 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:06:16 -0400 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 WAA09661 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:06:15 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04823; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:08:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:08:17 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006170208.WAA04823@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Joshua Stratton wrote: >For the Garbus technical nits file: gigabyte would be abbreviated GB. > >I realize that most of us know this, but perhaps it can be communicated to >Garbus & co. (if it's felt to be important) > > >b = bit; the atomic unit of computers >B = byte; composed of (in this day and age) 8 bits > >k = kilo = 1024; a kB is of course, eight times at large as a kb. >M = mega = 1048576; properly 1M = 1024k, approximated 1M = 1000k >G = giga = 1073741824; 1G = 1024M = 1048576k, approx. 1G = 1000M > >These numbers look extremely unnatural but they make sense: >k = 2^10; M = 2^20; G = 2^30. Everything on computers for many years now >has derived from 2's (i.e. the two states of a switch; off (0) and on (1)) Well the above is *very* common, but the below might be more accurate. Kilo, Mega, & Giga are SI prefixes and are base 10 powers. They of course, have been misused as base-2 powers for decades. The new prefixes to the right were only introduced in the past year of so. I suspect very few people even know they exist. k = kilo = 1000 (10^3) Ki = kibi = 1024 (2^10) M = mega = 1000000 (10^6) Mi = mibi = 1048576 (2^20 or 1024^2) G = giga = 1000000000 (10^9) Gi = gigi = 1073741824 (2^30 or 1024^3) -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 22:13:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA09780 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:13:54 -0400 Received: from pimout3-int.prodigy.net (pimout3-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA09777 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:13:53 -0400 Received: from ajimtayvaldo (KRLDA010-0325.splitrock.net [63.253.249.71]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA42838 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:15:53 -0400 From: "Jim Taylor" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] CSS not required in players Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:15:53 -0700 Message-ID: <001601bfd801$f7774920$f2f8fd3f@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200006162006.QAA20215@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've noticed a few claims that a player that doesn't implement CSS is illegal (or in violation of DVD licensing, or whatever). Actually, any manufacturer can legally make a player without CSS. It simply won't be able to play CSS-encrypted movies. A CSS license from DVDCCA is completely independent of the DVD Format license, which does not include any requirement or specification for CSS. The same is true of DVD-Audio. The spec was released a year ago, independent of copy protection requirements. Copy protection schemes are separately proposed by the CPTWG and DVD Forum's WG-9 to the DVD Forum Steering Committee for approval to be used with DVD. Pioneer released DVD-Audio players in Japan without CPPM that will only play un-protected DVD-Audio discs. The famous Apex DVD player has a "feature" in it that cracks me up. The secret menu allows you to disable CSS. At first blush many people think this is just as useful as disabling regions and Macrovision, but then they find out that all it does is prevent them from playing discs with CSS. It does clarify the point that CSS decryption is required to watch encrypted movies at all. -- Jim Taylor Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ < http://dvddemystified.com> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 22:17:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA09835 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:17:10 -0400 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 WAA09832 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:17:08 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1338B5-0001AT-00 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:17:43 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:17:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl / MPAA FAQ 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 Fri, 16 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > > > > I swearittagawd. It's reall yin there - i copied and pasted it directly. > > Someone should grab the FAQ off of their servers before they amend it; I > > strongly suspect that the MPAA monitors this list. I would but my > > connection at home is dirt slow and their site is very bandwidth > > intensive. > > Oh, it's *their* faq. I was corn-fused. Hey Tim, is this the faq you > swiped a copy of? It probably would be a good ideer to get a copy of the > source, for the good it will do. Yep. Although, I did not "swipe" it. I am authorised by the "fair use" doctrine to copy it in its entirity for the purpose of criticism. (the things you learn in the freedom business!) :-) Speaking of the FAQ, I have done a little bit of work on the rebuttal - (http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html) however it still has a LONG way to go. I want to state the three "uses" of a copyrighted work that cannot be denied by the copyright owner: "Fair Use", "First Sale", and "Copyright Expiration" - and make a new section for each - then, try to eliminate some of the redundancy (and thus make it simpler and easier to read). Since someone else on the list said that they have a copy of the original MPAA FAQ page, I think that would probably be good enough. Although, we may want to state the date that the MPAA-FAQ rebuttal was accurate as of, in case they make some changes. I really think that the "house" analogy rebuttal section is much better now! I have been unable to spend as much time on the MPAA-FAQ rebuttal as I had hoped. I'd like to spend a solid day on it and get it to at least "beta" quality... > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: > > > > > Joshua wrote: > > > > > > > > Of course, my favorite item from the FAQ remains: > > > > > > > > Q > > > > Are there other software packages besides DeCSS available for decrypting > > > > DVD movies, and if so, is the MPAA attacking them as well? > > > > > > > > A > > > > There are no legal software packages available for decrypting DVDs. > > > > > > Is this actually in the faq? I don't remember it.. Anyway, this is incorrect > > > regardless. There is SpeedRipper, which hasn't been declared illegal.. and > > > several others in fact. Check out > > > http://www.geocities.com/askdvd/ripping.html, for example, four rippers incl > > > DeCSS and DODSR. I think no ripper is illegal until it is declared illegal, > > > no? > > > > > > Are you being facetious and fooling me? > > > > > > sparky I suppose the MPAA should be suing all of the software companies that make DVD players then! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:18:22 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (adsla167.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.248.166]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA00994 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394ADF25.2C3D1872@cdpage.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:15:02 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction References: <200006170208.WAA04823@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.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 Jim Bauer wrote: > Well the above is *very* common, but the below might be > more accurate. Kilo, Mega, & Giga are SI prefixes and are > base 10 powers. They of course, have been misused as base-2 > powers for decades. The new prefixes to the right were only > introduced in the past year of so. I suspect very few people > even know they exist. > > k = kilo = 1000 (10^3) Ki = kibi = 1024 (2^10) > M = mega = 1000000 (10^6) Mi = mibi = 1048576 (2^20 or 1024^2) > G = giga = 1000000000 (10^9) Gi = gigi = 1073741824 (2^30 or 1024^3) > > See http://www.emedialive.com/EM2000/standard3.html -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 22:23:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA10027 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:23:57 -0400 Received: from pimout3-int.prodigy.net (pimout3-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA10024 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:23:56 -0400 Received: from ajimtayvaldo (KRLDA010-0325.splitrock.net [63.253.249.71]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA32802 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:25:57 -0400 From: "Jim Taylor" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:25:57 -0700 Message-ID: <001701bfd803$5f419be0$f2f8fd3f@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> 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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <8iel40$k86$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MPEG-4 and the closely related H.261/263 codecs, commonly used for low-quality teleconferencing, can achieve the same quality as MPEG-2 with up to 30% better encoding efficiency (depending on how good the encoder is). This is part of the reason DivX works as well as it does, since MPEG-4 is a newer format that acheives lower data rates than MPEG-2 for a given quality level. Newer formats (fractals, wavelets, object-based coding) and simple improvements of MPEG's DCT algorithm (such as in H.263F) will continue to drive the data rate down. I'll repeat what I said before. Showing that Schummann exaggerated to the point of falsehood is one thing, but arguing that people won't download movies because it takes too long or the quality is too low will never fly. It's true today, but it won't be true forever. -- Jim Taylor Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ < http://dvddemystified.com> -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of David A. Wagner Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 6:43 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In article , Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > Not true. MPEG isn't the epitome of bit efficiency. Think about video > conferencing coders which get television quality video feeds down to the > 64-128 kbps range. Augment that with Cray level processing and your argument > has a problem. 1. Video conferencing has much lower quality video, so much higher compression rates are possible for video conferencing than you'd expect to find in DVD-quality movies. 2. Video conferencing implementations typically exploit the fact that your entire video consists of a single talking head, and talking heads don't move much, so much higher compression rates are possible for video conferencing than you'd expect to find in DVD-quality movies. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 22:25:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA10089 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:25:32 -0400 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 WAA10086 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:25:31 -0400 Received: from travel-net.com (trj1.travel-net.com [207.176.160.1]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA30548 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:27:42 -0400 Message-ID: <394AE212.402A03B6@travel-net.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:27:30 -0400 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl References: <39491FBC.63C3F76@mninter.net> <8iel40$k86$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.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 I'll have to remember to limit my facial expressions next time so as to not overload the system . Sorry I couldnt resist a bit of humour on a Friday night. "David A. Wagner" wrote: > > In article , > Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > Not true. MPEG isn't the epitome of bit efficiency. Think about video > > conferencing coders which get television quality video feeds down to the > > 64-128 kbps range. Augment that with Cray level processing and your argument > > has a problem. > > 1. Video conferencing has much lower quality video, so much higher > compression rates are possible for video conferencing than you'd > expect to find in DVD-quality movies. > 2. Video conferencing implementations typically exploit the fact that > your entire video consists of a single talking head, and talking heads > don't move much, so much higher compression rates are possible for > video conferencing than you'd expect to find in DVD-quality movies. -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 23:57:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA10573 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:57:38 -0400 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 XAA10570 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:57:37 -0400 Received: from 209-122-203-86.s340.tnt6.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([209.122.203.86] helo=yuggoth) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 1339lW-0000AH-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:59:32 -0400 From: Jeremy Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:58:07 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.24] Content-Type: text/plain References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DAE@c100.clearway.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061316052900.26471@yuggoth> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Sure, you can compress and lose quality. > > The plaintiffs are saying that DeCSS represents a threat because > digital copying allows for perfect copies to be distributed. > However, a lossy compressed mp2 is by definition lower quality, > and this cannot be considered a perfect copy. One has to realize that Hollywood does not produce 720x480x24bitx30fps uncompressed video files. They produce films. I'm not sure what the equivalent resolution of a 35mm print is, but I'm sure its a lot higher. The whole argument aginst digital piracy is not that a DeCSSed copy is somehow equivalent to the sudio's "master copy", but that a DeCSSed copy is equivalent to what the studios have chosen to sell for 20 to 40 dollars. If one feeds this into DivX to produce something that possibly could be used in Internet "piracy," this argument is somewhat weakened. > Data formats also can cause degradation. The .mp2 format is probably > not the highest quality picture, it is probably just "good enough" > for most equipment people have in their homes. It is already a lossy format. There's always a trade-off. More bits could be used per frame, but that would increase DVD-drive and media cost. A better algorithm could be used, but that would require more efficient processors. At the time of DVD's introduction, most people's TV sets could not display the full 720x480 resolution. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 16 23:59:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA10607 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:59:16 -0400 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 XAA10601 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:59:15 -0400 Received: from 209-122-203-86.s340.tnt6.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([209.122.203.86] helo=yuggoth) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 1339n7-0000PC-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:01:11 -0400 From: Jeremy Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:59:57 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.24] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200006170130.VAA04573@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061621430801.02430@yuggoth> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Paul Fenimore wrote: > >Right. Congress intended to abolish the idea of publication, thus > >rendering first-sale meaningless. Because the word 'publication' doesn't > >appear in art.1, sect. 8, it is within Congress' power to abolish > >publication. > > Isn't the opposite true? That congress, and the rest of the USG, > is prohibited from doing anything beyond the powers explicity granted > in the constitution. I seem to recall a recent lawsuit in which a plaintiff claimed defamation by a electronic newsmagazine. He attempted to claim something like 200 counts, because the newspaper had kept the originals archived on-line, and thus was continuously republishing the allegedly defamatory account. Unfortunately, I do not remember any other details... The lawsuit would seem to suggest that, in certain cases, the concept of publication is under attack. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 00:01:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA10807 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:01:10 -0400 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 AAA10804 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:01:07 -0400 Received: from 209-122-203-86.s340.tnt6.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([209.122.203.86] helo=yuggoth) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 1339ov-0000Vu-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:03:04 -0400 From: Jeremy Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:01:47 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.24] Content-Type: text/plain References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061621213200.02430@yuggoth> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, you wrote: > I just read that FAT32 doesn't support files larger than 4 gig. > > is this *true*? > > if yes, another difficulty with the "downloading movies over the internet" > hypothesis, and a big one. "Why can't I download this 5 Gig [ie very > small] movie?" > > sparky No one file on a DVD is larger than ~1 GB, though. An excerpt from "Being John Malkovich"... -r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 1073709056 Mar 20 03:05 vts_05_1.vob -r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 1073709056 Mar 20 03:05 vts_05_2.vob -r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 1073709056 Mar 20 03:05 vts_05_3.vob There's 35 files in the video_ts folder, all together. I would imagine that a skillful pirate would bundle the ifo and bup files in a one zip/tar archive, and leave the video titles as single gig files. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 00:16:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA10970 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:16:44 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA10967 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:16:43 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c07-169.015.popsite.net [64.24.78.169]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA12445 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616210846.04ea9ed0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:16:35 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue In-Reply-To: <00061621430801.02430@yuggoth> References: <200006170130.VAA04573@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.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 11:59 PM 6/16/2000 -0400, Jeremy Erwin wrote: >On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, you wrote: > > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > >Right. Congress intended to abolish the idea of publication, thus > > >rendering first-sale meaningless. Because the word 'publication' doesn't > > >appear in art.1, sect. 8, it is within Congress' power to abolish > > >publication. > > > > Isn't the opposite true? That congress, and the rest of the USG, > > is prohibited from doing anything beyond the powers explicity granted > > in the constitution. > >I seem to recall a recent lawsuit in which a plaintiff claimed defamation by a >electronic newsmagazine. He attempted to claim something like 200 counts, >because the newspaper had kept the originals archived on-line, and thus was >continuously republishing the allegedly defamatory account. Unfortunately, >I do >not remember any other details... The lawsuit would seem to suggest that, in >certain cases, the concept of publication is under attack. If you're thinking of what I think you're thinking of, it was a case in which the court ruled that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations on account of the uniform single publication act. If so, it's blackletter law, it's just that the Act had never been applied before to the Net. http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/A19407-2000Mar22.html Libel Ruling Protects Web Site Archives By John Caher New York Law Journal March 23, 2000 In one of the nation's first decisions applying the single publication rule to an Internet posting, a New York Court of Claims judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former New York State environmental police officer. The ruling by Judge Francis T. Collins comes in an apparent case of first impression in New York and establishes precedent that the continuing publication rule cannot be employed in Internet-related defamation actions to skirt the one-year statute of limitations that applies to libel suits. It involved a plaintiff who alleged that the State's maintenance of an allegedly defamatory report on the Internet constituted continuous publication, thereby triggering a virtually perpetual statute of limitations. Collins rejected that argument and held that the act of making a document available via the Internet no more constitutes continuous publication than making a document available at a library. "While the act of making the document available constitutes a publication, in the absence of some alteration or change in form its continued availability on the Internet does not constitute a republication to begin the Statute of Limitations anew each day," Collins wrote in Firth v. State, 97999. .... -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 00:21:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA11072 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:21:02 -0400 Received: from web512.mail.yahoo.com (web512.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA11069 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:21:01 -0400 Message-ID: <20000617042232.27113.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web512.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:22:32 PDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:22:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 --- Jim Taylor wrote: > I'll repeat what I said before. Showing that Schummann exaggerated to > the point of falsehood is one thing, but arguing that people won't > download movies because it takes too long or the quality is too > low will never fly. It's true today, but it won't be true forever. The legal question is what irreparable harm justifies the prior restraint of free speech today. On one side of the scale is a denial of a First Amendment right that has been in place for 6 months. There better be a pretty big rock on the other side. An IOU signed in blood by the pope for a big rock to be delivered TBD (but soon) isn't good enough - come back when the rock is on the scale. On the other hand, I agree, we probably don't want to go off claiming that internet piracy will never happen for movies. However, the real question is how much will be due to DeCSS (if any). The true comparison is not how much today vs how much tomorrow, but rather how much tomorrow with DeCSS vs without DeCSS. I predict eventual rampant piracy either way. The unstopable method of piracy is the cam-corder. What the human eye can see, a camera can see, capture, and digitize. Add increasingly sophisticated video processing tools to do touch up, and you have an infinite supply of high quality filesharing fodder. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 00:23:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA11143 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:23:49 -0400 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 AAA11140 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:23:48 -0400 Received: from 209-122-203-86.s340.tnt6.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([209.122.203.86] helo=yuggoth) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 133AAt-0002Oi-00; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:25:45 -0400 From: Jeremy Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, "James S. Tyre" , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:22:42 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.24] Content-Type: text/plain References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616210846.04ea9ed0@cyberpass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061700242500.03086@yuggoth> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, James S. Tyre wrote: > At 11:59 PM 6/16/2000 -0400, Jeremy Erwin wrote: The lawsuit would seem to suggest that, in > >certain cases, the concept of publication is under attack. > > If you're thinking of what I think you're thinking of, it was a case in > which the court ruled that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of > limitations on account of the uniform single publication act. > > If so, it's blackletter law, it's just that the Act had never been applied > before to the Net. > > http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/A19407-2000Mar22.html > > Libel Ruling Protects Web Site > Archives That's the one. Good to know that it's been dismissed. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 00:44:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA11292 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:44:42 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA11289 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:44:40 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29743 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:46:32 -0500 Message-ID: <394B01CE.D7800255@mninter.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:42:54 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] OT:A new avenue References: <20000616032123.14636.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> <200006170101.VAA04461@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.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 > I have never been much of a fan of pseudonyms. I think if you want to > be take seriously, you should use your real name. However, I do > realize they are sometime necessary. Would the above argument > make stories written by Mark Twain (a pseudonym) appear to be illegal > by reasonable consumers? Also, and perhaps more related to DVDs, > how many actors use a stage name different from their real name? Or movies directed by Alan Smithee, for that matter? Nothing less credible/legitimate than that. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 00:49:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA11396 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:49:41 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA11393 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:49:40 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA30037 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:51:32 -0500 Message-ID: <394B02F8.312B1BF2@mninter.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:47:52 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction References: <200006170208.WAA04823@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <394ADF25.2C3D1872@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 > > k = kilo = 1000 (10^3) Ki = kibi = 1024 (2^10) > > M = mega = 1000000 (10^6) Mi = mibi = 1048576 (2^20 or 1024^2) > > G = giga = 1000000000 (10^9) Gi = gigi = 1073741824 (2^30 or 1024^3) I would have reservations about introducing this terminology this late in the case. The most important "bit," shall we say, is the order of magnitude of the file size, communicated equally by all three fashions. Moreover, I feel that the kibi/mibi/gigi is a pet neologism of a small number of scientists and has not been widely adopted. Using it can only increase miscommunication, not improve it, because of its relatively small community of adoptees. And what we're trying to do is communicate. Just my impression. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 01:15:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA11572 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:15:06 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA11569 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:15:04 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c07-169.015.popsite.net [64.24.78.169]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA17550; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000616221343.053b3c90@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:14:56 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "B. Traven" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] OT:A new avenue In-Reply-To: <394B01CE.D7800255@mninter.net> References: <20000616032123.14636.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> <200006170101.VAA04461@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.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 11:42 PM 6/16/2000 -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > > I have never been much of a fan of pseudonyms. I think if you want to > > be take seriously, you should use your real name. However, I do > > realize they are sometime necessary. Would the above argument > > make stories written by Mark Twain (a pseudonym) appear to be illegal > > by reasonable consumers? Also, and perhaps more related to DVDs, > > how many actors use a stage name different from their real name? > > > >Or movies directed by Alan Smithee, for that matter? Nothing less >credible/legitimate than that. Yes, I fully agree. -Hal Crovers From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 01:54:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA11805 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:54:27 -0400 Received: from pimout3-int.prodigy.net (pimout3-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA11802 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:54:26 -0400 Received: from ajimtayvaldo (KRLDA010-0273.splitrock.net [63.253.249.19]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA30804 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:56:27 -0400 From: "Jim Taylor" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:56:26 -0700 Message-ID: <001e01bfd820$c6d0f7c0$f2f8fd3f@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20000617042232.27113.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote >The legal question is what irreparable harm justifies the prior >restraint of free speech today. True, arguing difficulty of downloading today may help get Goldstein off the hook. But it won't work for a long-term defense of DeCSS and other, um, tools of free speech. >However, the real >question is how much will be due to DeCSS (if any). The true comparison >is not how much today vs how much tomorrow, but rather how much >tomorrow with DeCSS vs without DeCSS. I predict eventual rampant piracy >either way. I agree that copying is ultimately unstoppable. If not DeCSS then camcorder or video digitizer or something else. If it can be viewed it can be copied. However, this still isn't a defense for DeCSS. ("Yes, your honor, I did indeed break into the house through the window, but somebody else could have broken in through the door.") I worry that too much effort is going into proving that no piracy has occurred, when it may be better to focus on the fact that DeCSS is not primarily a tool of piracy. This makes DMCA moot. ("Yes, your honor, I did indeed break into the house through the window, but it was my own house and that was the only way I could get in.") -- Jim Taylor Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ < http://dvddemystified.com> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 02:04:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA12013 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:04:04 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA12010 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:04:03 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA00991 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:05:53 -0500 Message-ID: <394B1439.602AE653@mninter.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:01:29 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match 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 Even the footnotes in the reply brief are reason enough to toss out the case. #2: > Plaintiffs believe that the licensing regime plaintiffs and > the DVD CCA constructed permits them to dictate that members of the. > public who purchase their movies on DVDs (but not on VHS or VCD) must > also purchase an approved, CSS-licensed DVD player on which to view > that movie. Indeed, Fritz Attaway, the MPAA's Washington DC General > Counsel and major Congressional Lobbyist, testified that "[i]n order > to obtain authorized access to a DVD, the consumer has to in effect > make two purchases. He or she has to buy . . . a DVD disk . . . and > also has to purchase a DVD display device." Hernstadt Declaration, > Exh. E (Attaway Depo., 30:1-11). I'm wondering if we'll have a list to come back to on Monday. Okay, so I'm giddy. I'm really asking: what is the next aim for the list? Are we in lurk mode until the plaintiffs establish their position again? Do we have a current project to tackle? Chris (fiesty) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 03:17:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA12565 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:17:27 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA12562 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:17:25 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA17127 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:18:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:18:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction In-Reply-To: <200006170208.WAA04823@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.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 Yeah I know. But you're actually the first person who's even brought that up since the new prefixes were announced, so I don't let them bother me too much. (Besides, they're not official yet, IIRC) (proud to live in non-metric America; my car gets 400,000 rods to the hogshead and that's the way i likes it) On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Jim Bauer wrote: > Joshua Stratton wrote: > >For the Garbus technical nits file: gigabyte would be abbreviated GB. > > > >I realize that most of us know this, but perhaps it can be communicated to > >Garbus & co. (if it's felt to be important) > > > > > >b = bit; the atomic unit of computers > >B = byte; composed of (in this day and age) 8 bits > > > >k = kilo = 1024; a kB is of course, eight times at large as a kb. > >M = mega = 1048576; properly 1M = 1024k, approximated 1M = 1000k > >G = giga = 1073741824; 1G = 1024M = 1048576k, approx. 1G = 1000M > > > >These numbers look extremely unnatural but they make sense: > >k = 2^10; M = 2^20; G = 2^30. Everything on computers for many years now > >has derived from 2's (i.e. the two states of a switch; off (0) and on (1)) > > Well the above is *very* common, but the below might be > more accurate. Kilo, Mega, & Giga are SI prefixes and are > base 10 powers. They of course, have been misused as base-2 > powers for decades. The new prefixes to the right were only > introduced in the past year of so. I suspect very few people > even know they exist. > > k = kilo = 1000 (10^3) Ki = kibi = 1024 (2^10) > M = mega = 1000000 (10^6) Mi = mibi = 1048576 (2^20 or 1024^2) > G = giga = 1000000000 (10^9) Gi = gigi = 1073741824 (2^30 or 1024^3) > > -- > Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 03:44:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA12766 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:44:34 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA12763 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:44:33 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c07-169.015.popsite.net [64.24.78.169]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA29318 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000617004012.00aa1ca0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:44:25 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction In-Reply-To: References: <200006170208.WAA04823@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.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 03:18 AM 6/17/2000 -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: >(proud to live in non-metric America; my car gets 400,000 rods to the >hogshead and that's the way i likes it) Polluter! (7.5 miles/gallon if I haven't screwed the math.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 03:48:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA12898 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:48:04 -0400 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA12895 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:48:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20000617074935.25052.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:49:35 PDT Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:49:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 --- Jim Taylor wrote: > Bryan Taylor wrote > > >The legal question is what irreparable harm justifies the prior > >restraint of free speech today. > > True, arguing difficulty of downloading today may help get Goldstein > off the hook. But it won't work for a long-term defense of DeCSS > and other, um, tools of free speech. Right. However it does serve an important psychological purpose. Basically when the initial injunction hearing happened, I think Kaplan took one look at the dvd-copy.com website and said subconsciously to every one of our points "What a load of crap - these guys are copying DVD's". If we want to make a sophisticated arguement about reverse engineering or the Constitutional origin of fair use, or free speech, or anything else, we've got to secure some credibility and survive the "laughed out of court" test. > However, this still isn't a defense for DeCSS. ("Yes, your honor, I > did indeed break into the house through the window, but somebody else > could have broken in through the door.") Right. But it is a rebuttal. The MPAA says "these guys are thieves". We have to say "uh, we're not theives -- you're full of it". > I worry that too much effort is going into proving that no piracy has > occurred, when it may be better to focus on the fact that DeCSS is > not primarily a tool of piracy. This makes DMCA moot. Right. There are several ways to win this case: 1) reverse engineering exception 2) code=speech is outside of 1201's scope, 3) fair use / fair access / (use vs access) control 4) tying / misuse of copyright 5) access grant at first sale & "for home viewing only" 6) DMCA exceeds copyright/commerce power We have to shirk the "pirates" label to make these points. > -- > Jim Taylor > Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ < > http://dvddemystified.com> By the way, your DVD FAQ has been a very valuable resource! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 03:51:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA12976 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:51:02 -0400 Received: from dial223.roadrunner.com (dial223.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.223] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA12973 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:51:00 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial223.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA00829 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:53:22 -0600 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:53:22 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue Message-ID: <20000617015321.A737@localhost> References: <39498E6B.4ACE5E76@mninter.net> <20000616093856.A518@localhost> <200006170130.VAA04573@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006170130.VAA04573@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com>; from jfbauer@home.com on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 09:30:44PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I neglected to add the tags. On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 09:30:44PM -0400, Jim Bauer wrote: > Paul Fenimore wrote: > >Right. Congress intended to abolish the idea of publication, thus > >rendering first-sale meaningless. Because the word 'publication' doesn't > >appear in art.1, sect. 8, it is within Congress' power to abolish > >publication. > > Isn't the opposite true? That congress, and the rest of the USG, > is prohibited from doing anything beyond the powers explicity granted > in the constitution. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 03:54:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA13040 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:54:53 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA13037 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:54:51 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA17192 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:56:22 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:56:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000617004012.00aa1ca0@cyberpass.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 400,000 rods/hogshead 320 rods to the mile 1,250 miles/hogshead 63 gallons to the hogshead just shy of 20 miles/gallon (unless it is i who am screwing up the math, but there is this rule of thumb: if you're ever in a hurry, estimate by multiplying your mi/gal number by 20,000 to get the always-critical rods/hogshead number.) not great but i can't afford a better car right now (those little foreign diesels are sweet: ~50mi/gal. can't wait till there's one with a hybrid electric engine _and_ i get a raise ;) On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, James S. Tyre wrote: > At 03:18 AM 6/17/2000 -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > > >(proud to live in non-metric America; my car gets 400,000 rods to the > >hogshead and that's the way i likes it) > > > Polluter! > > (7.5 miles/gallon if I haven't screwed the math.) > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net > Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) > 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 > Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 03:59:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA13114 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:59:18 -0400 Received: from dial223.roadrunner.com (dial223.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.223] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA13111 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:59:15 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial223.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA00839 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:01:39 -0600 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:01:38 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction Message-ID: <20000617020138.B737@localhost> References: <200006170208.WAA04823@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200006170208.WAA04823@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com>; from jfbauer@home.com on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 10:08:17PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 10:08:17PM -0400, Jim Bauer wrote: > Joshua Stratton wrote: > >For the Garbus technical nits file: gigabyte would be abbreviated GB. > > > >I realize that most of us know this, but perhaps it can be communicated to > >Garbus & co. (if it's felt to be important) [ ... ] > Well the above is *very* common, but the below might be > more accurate. Kilo, Mega, & Giga are SI prefixes and are > base 10 powers. They of course, have been misused as base-2 > powers for decades. The new prefixes to the right were only > introduced in the past year of so. I suspect very few people > even know they exist. > > k = kilo = 1000 (10^3) Ki = kibi = 1024 (2^10) > M = mega = 1000000 (10^6) Mi = mibi = 1048576 (2^20 or 1024^2) > G = giga = 1000000000 (10^9) Gi = gigi = 1073741824 (2^30 or 1024^3) I'd like to second this point. No, I'm not interested in a flame war, but kilo is 1000, not 2^10. Systems of units and the like are defined by national and internation standards bodies for a reason. Being wrong by a little bit can be ignored in many circumstances. But there are times and places for precision and correctness. A court is one of those places. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 04:01:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA13296 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:01:08 -0400 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA13293 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:01:06 -0400 Message-ID: <20000617080239.6541.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:02:39 PDT Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:02:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match 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 --- Chris Moseng wrote: > Okay, so I'm giddy. I'm really asking: what is the next aim for the > list? Are we in lurk mode until the plaintiffs establish their > position again? Do we have a current project to tackle? I think there are several things worth working on and we should try to multi-task. 1) Post-hearings comments are due back to the Copyright Office soon. 2) The MPAA FAQ response 3) There is another public comment opportunity on first sale & software rights under the DMCA. 4) We ought to start early on the trial amicus brief 5) Some kind of consice feedback back to the defence, especially on technical issues & so on I've been working on setting up CVS on eon so that we can have a basic way to share and group edit documents. I'm kind of learning as I go, but some of the above could easily go into there. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 04:13:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA13433 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:13:55 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA13430 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:13:52 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA06307 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:15:40 -0500 Message-ID: <394B3259.DE6D3AC2@mninter.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:10:02 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Deposition objections 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 Can someone clarify some of these objections frequently heard from the opposing council: assumes facts not in evidence ambiguous (specifically, I know what the word means generally) incomplete hypothetical calls for speculation Maybe a bad example and a less objectionable version. Thanks from a non-lawyer. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 04:14:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA13484 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:14:35 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA13476 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:14:33 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c07-169.015.popsite.net [64.24.78.169]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA01251 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000617010907.00ae2460@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:14:27 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000617004012.00aa1ca0@cyberpass.net> 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 concede, and most humbly retract my ever-so-rude (and precipitous) comment. ;-) This is why I'm a lawyer, not a math jock. And why I *really* shouldn't just do it in my head. At 03:56 AM 6/17/2000 -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: >400,000 rods/hogshead > >320 rods to the mile > >1,250 miles/hogshead > >63 gallons to the hogshead > >just shy of 20 miles/gallon > >(unless it is i who am screwing up the math, but there is this rule of >thumb: if you're ever in a hurry, estimate by multiplying your mi/gal >number by 20,000 to get the always-critical rods/hogshead number.) > >not great but i can't afford a better car right now (those little foreign >diesels are sweet: ~50mi/gal. can't wait till there's one with a hybrid >electric engine _and_ i get a raise ;) > >On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, James S. Tyre wrote: > > > At 03:18 AM 6/17/2000 -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > > > > > > >(proud to live in non-metric America; my car gets 400,000 rods to the > > >hogshead and that's the way i likes it) > > > > > > Polluter! > > > > (7.5 miles/gallon if I haven't screwed the math.) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net > > Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) > > 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 > > Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 04:16:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA13574 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:16:39 -0400 Received: from dial128.roadrunner.com (dial128.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.128] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA13571 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:16:36 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial128.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA00988 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:18:59 -0600 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:18:58 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Message-ID: <20000617021858.C737@localhost> References: <20000617042232.27113.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> <001e01bfd820$c6d0f7c0$f2f8fd3f@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <001e01bfd820$c6d0f7c0$f2f8fd3f@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>; from jtfrog@usa.net on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 10:56:26PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 10:56:26PM -0700, Jim Taylor wrote: > Bryan Taylor wrote > > >The legal question is what irreparable harm justifies the prior > >restraint of free speech today. > > True, arguing difficulty of downloading today may help get Goldstein off the > hook. But it won't work for a long-term defense of DeCSS and other, um, > tools of free speech. I think Bryan is saying that the preliminary injunction has to have a showing of immediate or prompt harm, as distinct from any argument that one might make as a defense during the litigation. Arguing that the harm is remote, as you point out, may be less useful during the trial, but it is highly pertinent for the purposes of the preliminary injunction. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 04:19:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA13659 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:19:38 -0400 Received: from dial128.roadrunner.com (dial128.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.128] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA13656 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:19:34 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial128.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA00996 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:21:58 -0600 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:21:57 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction Message-ID: <20000617022157.D737@localhost> References: <200006170208.WAA04823@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from cpt@gryphon.auspice.net on Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 03:18:57AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 03:18:57AM -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote: > Yeah I know. But you're actually the first person who's even brought that > up since the new prefixes were announced, so I don't let them bother me > too much. (Besides, they're not official yet, IIRC) > > (proud to live in non-metric America; my car gets 400,000 rods to the > hogshead and that's the way i likes it) Heh heh. There really is a reason to know powers of 12 ;-> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 05:34:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA14473 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:34:48 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA14470 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:34:42 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c07-036.015.popsite.net [64.24.78.36]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA07082 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000617012025.04f16ef0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:34:33 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Deposition objections In-Reply-To: <394B3259.DE6D3AC2@mninter.net> 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 03:10 AM 6/17/2000 -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: >Can someone clarify some of these objections frequently heard from the >opposing council: > >assumes facts not in evidence >ambiguous (specifically, I know what the word means generally) >incomplete hypothetical >calls for speculation > >Maybe a bad example and a less objectionable version. > >Thanks from a non-lawyer. OK, having screwed up Joshua Stratton's math test, allow me to try to redeem myself. ;-) Assumes facts not in evidence: the objection is that the interrogator is asking a question for which there is not yet evidentiary support in the case record. Example - "Did your spouse help you with this?" when there is no evidence that you have a spouse. Ambiguous: exactly what you think, but with a catch. In deposition, or at trial, skilled lawyers will "see" what the words look like on paper, understanding that the cold record often reads differently when body language, inflection and other f2f elements are removed. (Yes, these depos were videotaped, but the vast majority of depos aren't, and we hone our skills thinking of non-taped ones.) What is perfectly clear in conversation, realistically, is not quite so clear on paper, sometimes. When I'm in depo, I'm thinking as much about what the transcript will look like as what it sounds like live. Incomplete hypothetical: The rules are such that asking a proper hypothetical question is one of the most difficult things for a lawyer to do, since a complete hypothetical must include *every* relevant fact, the examiner cannot just assume that the person being examined knows them (even if the examiner knows that the witness knows them). Some judges are less rigid than others, and other things being equal, if the case goes to trial, judges are less rigid in bench trials than in jury trials, but if the hypothetical is missing *any* relevant fact, it runs the risk of a sustained objection as being incomplete. On the other hand, getting all the relevant facts into the hypothetical (potentially) makes the question long, compound, unintelligible, vague, ambiguous. The art is to know how to get enough in while still stating it clearly, it is a *very* practiced art. A semi-relevant incomplete hypothetical would be asking about DSL transfer rates without specifying the flavor of DSL, the proximity to the CLEC, the service plan one has contracted for, etc. Without more, "So then, with DSL, you could download a 2GB file in x time units" is incomplete. (It is also incomplete since it says nothing of the bandwidth of the server I'm pulling from, etc.) Calls for speculation: As the questioner (and if I ask the right questions), I'm entitled to know everything you know which is relevant and non-privileged, even if your knowledge is only partial. But I'm not entitled to what would amount to a guess from you. (The standard of relevancy for deposition purposes is broader than at trial. Lots of things which can be asked in depo can't be asked at trial.) Flip the tables, assume you're examining me, assume (since this is true) I know *what* perl is, I can sort of read/interpret what a simple perl script does, but that's the extent of my knowledge. My knowledge of what perl is exists, even if incomplete, so if you ask me what it is, your question does not call for speculation. But if you ask me how to write a perl script which does [whatever], it does call for speculation from me, even if the answer would be simple from a skilled perl programmer. Or, assuming Corley did "x", "what would you have done if Corley did y instead of x?" Calls for speculation, since Corley did x, not y, how the witness would have reacted if Corley had done y is speculating. Most of these objections do not need to be made in deposition (as opposed to at trial), but most skilled lawyers, even good guy lawyers, will make them when they are appropriate. Several reasons. First, if I'm representing the deponent, it is sometimes a "head's up" to my client that I have a problem with the question, that the client should think extra hard before answering. Second, if the lawyer asking questions is not good on his feet, he can be screwed up, lose his concentration, etc. Doesn't always happen, but if it gives my client an edge, and I can do it within the rules, it's my job to best protect my client. Third, especially with non-party witnesses who may not be present at trial (Valenti), cluttering the record, even with dubious objections, sometimes is a good thing to do. If Valenti isn't at trial, there are circumstances where portions of his deposition can be admitted at trial in lieu of his in-person testimony, but they don't get admitted unless the objections are overruled, and even if they are, the cold record may be so confused as to render the depo unusable at trial. Or, if Valenti is at trial then, other things being equal, the more cluttered the record is, the harder it is to effectively use his depo testimony to impeach his trial testimony, should the occasion arise. (Aside from the lawyer objections, Valenti will be able to vary somewhat from his depo testimony on account of his fever, illness. That's not a complete excuse, but it does have some efficacy should he contradict himself at trial. I always postpone the depo of a sick witness unless, as here, there simply is not the time-luxury to do it.) A final note: most depos never see the light of day at trial, even if the case does go to trial, which most don't. A skilled lawyer will riff on that knowledge, do things to aid his client which may not be 100% kosher, knowing full well that the odds are that neither the judge nor the jury will ever see. The job is to protect the client by any legal/ethical means available, and while some tactics no doubt seem quite foreign to most here, it might be malpractice not to use them. I'm a good-guy lawyer, or so I like to think, and so some on this list will say, but if I don't use the tactics available to me, I'm doing a disservice to my client, plain and simple. This certainly is not to say that I approve of or agree with everything which the studio lawyers have done, but I do understand the mindset. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 07:48:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA15591 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:48:49 -0400 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 HAA15588 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:48:47 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (adsla167.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.248.166]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA03604 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394B64D7.41BB4AD9@cdpage.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:45:27 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction References: <200006170208.WAA04823@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000617020138.B737@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: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 10:08:17PM -0400, Jim Bauer wrote: > > > > k = kilo = 1000 (10^3) Ki = kibi = 1024 (2^10) > > M = mega = 1000000 (10^6) Mi = mibi = 1048576 (2^20 or 1024^2) > > G = giga = 1000000000 (10^9) Gi = gigi = 1073741824 (2^30 or 1024^3) > > > I'd like to second this point. No, I'm not interested in a flame war, > but kilo is 1000, not 2^10. Systems of units and the like are defined > by national and internation standards bodies for a reason. Being wrong > by a little bit can be ignored in many circumstances. But there are times > and places for precision and correctness. A court is one of those places. > > > Paul Fenimore A kilo may be 1000, but according to Webster (and FOLDOC, and many other Sources) , a kilo_byte_ is 1024, because kilobyte is referring to a binary rather than a decimal system. For the record, the official (see http://www.isa.org/journals/ic/brief/1,1772,80,00.html) terms are kibi, mebi, and gibi, not kibi, mibi and gigi. Gigi is a Leslie Caron/Maurice Chevalier flick. Dana, Department de la Quibble -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 14:14:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18196 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:14:00 -0400 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 OAA18193 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:13:58 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 133N74-0006ae-00 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:14:34 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:14:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match In-Reply-To: <394B1439.602AE653@mninter.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 Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: > Even the footnotes in the reply brief are reason enough to toss out the > case. #2: > > > Plaintiffs believe that the licensing regime plaintiffs and > > the DVD CCA constructed permits them to dictate that members of the. > > public who purchase their movies on DVDs (but not on VHS or VCD) must > > also purchase an approved, CSS-licensed DVD player on which to view > > that movie. Indeed, Fritz Attaway, the MPAA's Washington DC General > > Counsel and major Congressional Lobbyist, testified that "[i]n order > > to obtain authorized access to a DVD, the consumer has to in effect > > make two purchases. He or she has to buy . . . a DVD disk . . . and > > also has to purchase a DVD display device." Hernstadt Declaration, > > Exh. E (Attaway Depo., 30:1-11). > > I'm wondering if we'll have a list to come back to on Monday. > > Okay, so I'm giddy. I'm really asking: what is the next aim for the > list? Are we in lurk mode until the plaintiffs establish their position > again? Do we have a current project to tackle? You can always work on the MPAA FAQ rebuttal. :-) http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html IMHO, even if the DeCSS case is dismissed, I would like to see the MPAA held accountable for the illegal tying that they are doing. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:35:33 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial88.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00673 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:37:58 -0600 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:37:57 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] OT: System Internationale, et al., was: 2600 Reply Brief to Motion to Vacate Injunction Message-ID: <20000617123757.A512@localhost> References: <200006170208.WAA04823@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20000617020138.B737@localhost> <394B64D7.41BB4AD9@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <394B64D7.41BB4AD9@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 05:45:27AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'll limit my comments in opposition to what you are saying by noting only that the "special-casing" of the prefixes in kB, MB, etc. is exactly one of the thing SI was and is intended to eliminate. Paul Fenimore On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 05:45:27AM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 10:08:17PM -0400, Jim Bauer wrote: > > > > > > k = kilo = 1000 (10^3) Ki = kibi = 1024 (2^10) > > > M = mega = 1000000 (10^6) Mi = mibi = 1048576 (2^20 or 1024^2) > > > G = giga = 1000000000 (10^9) Gi = gigi = 1073741824 (2^30 or 1024^3) > > > > > > I'd like to second this point. No, I'm not interested in a flame war, > > but kilo is 1000, not 2^10. Systems of units and the like are defined > > by national and internation standards bodies for a reason. Being wrong > > by a little bit can be ignored in many circumstances. But there are times > > and places for precision and correctness. A court is one of those places. > > > > > > Paul Fenimore > > A kilo may be 1000, but according to Webster (and FOLDOC, and many other Sources) > , a kilo_byte_ is 1024, because kilobyte is referring to a binary rather than a > decimal system. > > For the record, the official (see > http://www.isa.org/journals/ic/brief/1,1772,80,00.html) terms are kibi, mebi, and > gibi, not kibi, mibi and gigi. Gigi is a Leslie Caron/Maurice Chevalier flick. > > Dana, Department de la Quibble > > > > -- > Dana J. Parker > http://www.cdpage.com > http://www.emediapro.net > http://www.dvdpro.net > > mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 15:41:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA18946 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:41:34 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA18943 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:41:33 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FWB00FF5DFP1L@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:20:11 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-reply-to: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FWB00FF6DFP1L@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <39492056.DDEE2A00@uic.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, John Schulien wrote: > >If you were to toss out 21 of 24 frames, you would be left with program content > >that changes much more significantly from frame to frame, and would require > >far more data per frame to represent the much larger differences between > >frames. > > > >So you would lose what you thought you were gaining. > > > >Can anyone with real knowledge of MPEG internals verify this? My knowledge of MPEG is very high level, but I think it is sufficient to provide my thoughts. Yes, this is true. One of the largest savings in MPEG compression is something called "motion compensation" which will take a moving sprite-like object from the screen and just move it around (imagine a tennis or ping pong match -- the ball takes nothing to encode.) But this method is usually limited to being applied sequentially for a few frames while a scene is most just a single object moving. If you run twice as fast, then that's half as many frames that motion compensation will be useful for. The "B" and "P" frames rely on the scene not changing very much -- a general increase in speed will increase these changes, and thus the effectiveness of "B" and "P" frames would be lessened. "I"-frames (the ones that are basically JPEG frames, and are much larger than B or P frames) are required on scene changes, and at half the frames on the same movie, you will have twice as many "average number of scene changes per frame" which will increase the density of "I-frames". That said, a re-encoded MPEG stream with every other frame should still lead to a further reduction in size, but not half the size. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 15:49:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA19066 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:49:18 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA19063 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:49:17 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 133Och-0008JK-00; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:51:19 -0700 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:51:19 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Message-ID: <20000617125119.W15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <394B1439.602AE653@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 01:14:33PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tim Neu writes: > IMHO, even if the DeCSS case is dismissed, I would like to see the MPAA > held accountable for the illegal tying that they are doing. After reading Doug Hudson's comments on antitrust, I feel motivated to ask once again: Industry associations, including closed industry associations, NDAs, trade secret licenses, even patent licenses and cross-licenses are (alas) fairly common in the technology industry. Many things are manufactured which conform to closed standards which are only available under NDA upon payment of a license fee. Many things are manufactured which implement a patented technique under the terms of a patent license. Is _all_ of this stuff illegal under antitrust law? If not, what differences exist between the MPAA/DVD CCA regime and other closed standard/trade association/technology licensing regimes which make the one illegal where the others are not? (I know there _are_ differences -- I'd like to hear why they are significant.) -- 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 Sat Jun 17 16:54:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA19519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:54:46 -0400 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 QAA19516 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:54:45 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09698; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:56:48 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:56:48 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006172056.QAA09698@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <394B1439.602AE653@mninter.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chris Moseng wrote: >Even the footnotes in the reply brief are reason enough to toss out the >case. #2: > >> Plaintiffs believe that the licensing regime plaintiffs and >> the DVD CCA constructed permits them to dictate that members of the. >> public who purchase their movies on DVDs (but not on VHS or VCD) must >> also purchase an approved, CSS-licensed DVD player on which to view >> that movie. Indeed, Fritz Attaway, the MPAA's Washington DC General >> Counsel and major Congressional Lobbyist, testified that "[i]n order >> to obtain authorized access to a DVD, the consumer has to in effect >> make two purchases. He or she has to buy . . . a DVD disk . . . and >> also has to purchase a DVD display device." Hernstadt Declaration, >> Exh. E (Attaway Depo., 30:1-11). So what would be a DVD display device? Would it be the DVD drive in your computer? Or would it be the monitor attached to your computer? BTW, do DVD drives come bundled with SW for viewing DVDs? -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 17:37:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19831 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:37:40 -0400 Received: from geulph.frogspace.net (root@[64.6.226.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA19828 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:37:36 -0400 Received: from [210.160.35.27] (helo=vaio) by geulph.frogspace.net with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 133QJL-0004YA-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:39:27 -0700 Message-ID: <000901bfd8a4$7ab23a00$1b23a0d2@vaio> From: "Robert Wilde" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 06:39:07 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >So what would be a DVD display device? Would it be the DVD drive >in your computer? Or would it be the monitor attached to your >computer? Again, here's a fuller excerpt from the Attaway deposition (which you can find on 2600): 21 Q. Okay. And in the context of DVDs 22 specifically, does the consumer get authorized 23 access to the material on the DVD by purchasing the 24 DVD? 25 A. No. 30 1 Q. Why is that? Could you explain that? 2 A. In order to obtain authorized access to a 3 DVD, the consumer has to in effect make two 4 purchases. He or she has to buy a D -- the 5 software, a DVD disk. 6 Q. The media? 7 A. The media, and also has to purchase a DVD 8 display device, which is specifically authorized to 9 obtain access to the motion picture in an 10 intelligible form under certain terms and 11 conditions. It's almost certain that he is refering to the software in the case of a PC DVD drive ("obtain access to the motion picture in an intelligible form"). That is, you have to obtain a properly licsenced CSS decryption tool to decrypt a CSS encrypted DVD movie. One could quibble that one has to make 3 purchases; the movie, the DVD decryption, and the physical DVD drive. For a stand-alone player, of course, the decruption is bundled with the hardware. I have no idea what portion of DVD drives come equipped with software. If you buy a PC with DVD drive from a major OEM, I suspect 100% of the PCs will have pre-installed DVD playing software. It is possible, however, to buy a bare DVD drive without playback software. Or rather, I'm almost certain of that fact, I couldn't name a brand offhand. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 17:59:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20044 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:59:03 -0400 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 RAA20041 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:59:02 -0400 Received: from ip11.bedford3.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.11.11]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 133QeH-0001HH-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:01:06 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:55:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: <000901bfd8a4$7ab23a00$1b23a0d2@vaio> In-Reply-To: <000901bfd8a4$7ab23a00$1b23a0d2@vaio> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 RAA20042 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 06:39:07 +0900, "Robert Wilde" wrote: >>So what would be a DVD display device? Would it be the DVD drive >>in your computer? Or would it be the monitor attached to your >>computer? > >Again, here's a fuller excerpt from the Attaway deposition (which you can >find on 2600): > > 21 Q. Okay. And in the context of DVDs > 22 specifically, does the consumer get authorized > 23 access to the material on the DVD by purchasing the > 24 DVD? > 25 A. No. > 30 > 1 Q. Why is that? Could you explain that? > 2 A. In order to obtain authorized access to a > 3 DVD, the consumer has to in effect make two > 4 purchases. He or she has to buy a D -- the > 5 software, a DVD disk. > 6 Q. The media? > 7 A. The media, and also has to purchase a DVD > 8 display device, which is specifically authorized to > 9 obtain access to the motion picture in an > 10 intelligible form under certain terms and > 11 conditions. He or she also has to be a stockholder in a DVD consortium company and agree to the bylaws of the state of California (or the prefect of Tokyo) concerning intellectual property. Plus she must sign a non-disclosure agreement binding her not to discuss the plots, storylines, or any events depicted in any MPAA motion picture. In accordance with MPAA guidelines, the viewer must refrain from criticizing or characterizing any MPAA company production, unless he or she is a recognized film and theater critic for a print publication that has a subscription base of at least 30,000 consumers. IOW, since Attaway is just pulling this crap out of his hat, why not go for broke? >DVD playing software. It is possible, however, to buy a bare DVD drive >without playback software. Or rather, I'm almost certain of that fact, I >couldn't name a brand offhand. I bought my Toshiba SD-M1212 bare; viewing software was bundled with ATI video card. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 18:51:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20435 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:51:02 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA20432 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:51:01 -0400 Received: from 216-164-134-41.s295.tnt3.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([216.164.134.41] helo=yuggoth) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 133RSa-0003aa-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:53:05 -0400 From: Jeremy Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:50:06 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.24] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200006172056.QAA09698@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061718522700.08636@yuggoth> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, you wrote: > BTW, do DVD drives come bundled with SW for viewing DVDs? > Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com Some of them do. My Iomagic 6x DVD came with "PowerDVD" 1.5.. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 18:53:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20559 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:53:14 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA20556 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:53:13 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:58:51 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DC3@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:58:50 -0400 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 -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Taylor [mailto:bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 3:50 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl I think Kaplan took one look at the dvd-copy.com website and said subconsciously to every one of our points "What a load of crap - these guys are copying DVD's". If we want to make a sophisticated argument about reverse engineering or the Constitutional origin of fair use, or free speech, or anything else, we've got to secure some credibility and survive the "laughed out of court" test. ---------------------- Leland's comments: One of the ways I read these documents is to get a hint of how the case will be argued. The point Bryan makes is extremely important in light of Kaplan's comment that one side is "full of baloney." Up until now, he seems to have swayed by two basic motivations: 1. Move forward to trial quickly. Kaplan has said that he believes that there are not serious fact issues. 2. "straight face" test. The plaintiffs have relied very heavily on making the case sound plain and simple. Notice what Mr. Gold says in the discovery hearing: "I don't -- I don't know -- I don't actually know, but I would imagine there are very, very few, far less than 100 that are particularly relevant to the issues, because I don't think there are any factual issues. That's what I want to say about the adjournment. There is no question, they don't dispute, I believe, that there was circumvention here. That they have been trafficking in a circumvention device. That circumvention is a protective program that protects copyrighted material, they are trafficking in it. They are not photographers, they are not doing reverse engineering. And, obviously, your decision on the preliminary injunctive focused on all of those issues. If there are fact issues, I don't think there are very many, they certainly wouldn't take more than one or two experts to really be presented to your Honor..." Mr. Hernstadt for the defense replied to this point: "Plaintiffs think that it is a very simple, straightforward case. It is not. When this case was a preliminary injunction case, the facts were very important, what people put on their Web sites, what they said on their Web sites. There are DVD's, you can copy DVD's. Take this utility, you can use it to copy. Facts were very important. When they start with a detective lawyer, facts were very important. Here are the threatening e-mails. Here are the things that have happened to us. But when it comes to the trial, they're saying, this is very simple. There has been circumvention, we deny that there has been circumvention. This is a is circumvention device. We're not sure about that. There has been trafficking. We don't think that this constitutes trafficking in the statutory language. There was a point recently when someone associated with the plaintiffs was testifying before a Congressional committee. He said, that, although this case was still being litigated, he did not believe that you have the right to play a DVD unless you possessed the "proper equipment." This correlates closely with other statements, including a deposition quoted in this list. Notice this exchange: THE COURT: But I want to work through this. Now, the question of whether DECSS in fact decodes or gains access, that's a yes or no question, to which you are going to have experts testifying, and they may disagree. MR. HERNSTADT: Right. Look at the language of the question. The court is making "decoding" and "gaining access" synonyms. Now, obviously, a good judge may ask a question to see what are the limits of the argument. But I have not seen similar questioning of Mr Gold or any of the other attorneys. And that, that makes me very nervous indeed. Here are what I see are the central issues: 1. There is enormous worldwide interest in DVD as both a format for distribution of video and for high capacity data. As evidence, see slashdot postings, news stories, the sheer volume of LiViD materials, etc. 2. Video playback, either on a computer or a home player, is a complex process. No one programmer understands all the issues involved. For that reason, a group of programmers is required. 3. Producing reliable software requires that all units of the software system be subjected in independent testing and criticism. One popular way to do this is to release test programs that demonstrate separable components of the system under development. 4. A necessary step of video playback from DVDs is the translation of .vob files. Because .vob files are transformed .mp2 files, the most simple and efficient way to demonstrate the translation algorithm works is to release a test program that translates .vob files to .mp2 files. This is DeCSS, a classic mid-product of a large software development group. 5. The test program must have wide distribution to maximize the possibility that bugs will get reported to the original author. Notice the DeCSS source code shows that the author did, in fact, modify it to fix a divide by zero bug after release. 6. Open source operating systems exhibit a characteristic that they can understand and interpret a large number of data formats. It is to the advantage of the open source developers that they make their systems interoperate with as many data formats as possible. DVD is, in this sense, one of many. 7. Open source developers come from a broad spectrum of society, frequently spanning national borders. To the extent there has been anti-corporate and anti-copyright speech, that is because the normal corporate agreements that would suppress such speech are not present here. It should be obvious that in a volunteer effort, each contributor has different expressed motivations. ------ A few notes on #4, which is I believe the most central point. Suppose that CSS wasn't a transformation of .mp2, but it was, in fact, a complete video codec? In that case, the mid-products would probably not produce entire files, but individual frames or other internal details of the video. Such programs almost certainly exist for .mp2 files. In a software development effort where the CSS code was supplied pursuant to a DVDCCA license, the mid-products are less necessary because having the official code from DVDCCA removes the testing requirement of the transformational step. ------- Okay, so the big question that comes out of this is -- is the transformation of .vob -> .mp2 circumvention? If I were on the witness stand, I wouldn't answer that question, because I am not a lawyer and could not competently opine on the statutory language. But as a humble common programmer, I don't see how I have any less "access to the work" with .vob files than I do with .mp2. After all, to me it looks like a pile of bits. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 20:14:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21089 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:14:19 -0400 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21086 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:14:17 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inigf1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.65.225]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA15640 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:15:06 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA In-Reply-To: References: <000901bfd8a4$7ab23a00$1b23a0d2@vaio> <000901bfd8a4$7ab23a00$1b23a0d2@vaio> 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 Several days ago I referred to Judge Kaplan's remarks in the protective order hearing about his hammering MPAA if it could not prove its allegations on DeCSS. Here are his remarks (preceded by those of Garbus') from pages 26-27 of the transcript at http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0606-hearing.txt : 9 MR. GARBUS: ... 15 But the fact is, if you go to the depositions here, 16 at any time you will see the path this litigation is taking. 17 The path this litigation is taking is the path that I just 18 described to you, namely, that there have been maybe a half a 19 million downloads of DeCSS. There has been not one person who 20 we know of who has ever copied from Mr. Goldstein's site. 21 There is not one person that we know of who has ever made a 22 pirated copy from Mr. Goldstein's site. There is not one 23 person that we know of who has ever made a copy of a DVD as a 24 result of a DeCSS. And that is what Mr. Valenti said and that 25 is why they don't want this out, because they have press 27 1 release after press release after press release. 2 THE COURT: That is persuasive only to a point. We 3 are now six weeks away from a trial. If they can't remotely, 4 as you suggest, prove the allegations they have made in this 5 case, embarrassment on the Internet is going to be the least 6 of their problems, because I am going to call this case, one 7 way or another. Obviously, listening to the two of you, 8 somebody is full of baloney. I won't have any hesitation 9 about saying who it is when I see the evidence. So, while I 10 understand this embarrassment notion, I understand both sides 11 are conducting as much of a public relations campaign as a 12 lawsuit, maybe more, but the game all stops next month. ... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 20:55:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21362 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:55:09 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21359 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:55:08 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:57:12 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:57:12 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA In-Reply-To: <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.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 > 7 way or another. Obviously, listening to the two of you, > 8 somebody is full of baloney. I won't have any hesitation > 9 about saying who it is when I see the evidence. So, while I > 10 understand this embarrassment notion, I understand both sides > 11 are conducting as much of a public relations campaign as a > 12 lawsuit, maybe more, but the game all stops next month. Is this the closest we have heard of a non-biased statement from Kaplan, or am I missing the tone in his voice suggesting we are "full of baloney"? MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 21:12:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA21587 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:12:41 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA21584 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:12:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 30869 invoked by uid 502); 18 Jun 2000 01:17:19 -0000 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:17:19 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA Message-ID: <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> References: <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: ; from matthew.r.pavlovich.1 on Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 07:57:12PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 07:57:12PM -0500, matthew.r.pavlovich.1 wrote: > > 7 way or another. Obviously, listening to the two of you, > > 8 somebody is full of baloney. I won't have any hesitation > > 9 about saying who it is when I see the evidence. So, while I > > 10 understand this embarrassment notion, I understand both sides > > 11 are conducting as much of a public relations campaign as a > > 12 lawsuit, maybe more, but the game all stops next month. > > Is this the closest we have heard of a non-biased statement from Kaplan, > or am I missing the tone in his voice suggesting we are "full of baloney"? Kaplan's been fairly unbiased since day one. Of course, most folks on our side don't want to hear that. Painting ourselves as martyrs is much more fun. Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 21:14:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA21712 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:14:50 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA21709 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:14:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 30883 invoked by uid 502); 18 Jun 2000 01:19:39 -0000 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:19:39 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA Message-ID: <20000617211939.C23755@linuxpower.org> References: <000901bfd8a4$7ab23a00$1b23a0d2@vaio> <000901bfd8a4$7ab23a00$1b23a0d2@vaio> <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net>; from John Young on Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 08:15:06PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 08:15:06PM -0400, John Young wrote: > > 1 release after press release after press release. > 2 THE COURT: That is persuasive only to a point. We > 3 are now six weeks away from a trial. If they can't remotely, > 4 as you suggest, prove the allegations they have made in this > 5 case, embarrassment on the Internet is going to be the least > [ snipped ] Something should be mentioned here. "Allegations they have made in this case" covers a lot more ground than simply "people are making copies of DVD's"; the central allegation is that DeCSS is a violation of 1201. No doubt Kaplan realizes this as well. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 21:45:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA21909 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:45:52 -0400 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA21906 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:45:51 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inigf1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.65.225]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA32762 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:47:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:45:38 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA In-Reply-To: <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> References: <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.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: >Kaplan's been fairly unbiased since day one. > >Of course, most folks on our side don't want to hear that. Painting >ourselves as martyrs is much more fun. Kaplan has been far from unbiased, based on watching and hearing him in court insult, berate, cajole and disparage the defense team from day one. Only in the protective order hearing did I hear him show a bit of balance, and even there he harangued Garbus far more than he did the plaintiffs' and press' counsel. He has made no bones about favoring MPAA's case. His written orders do not convey the full range of his behavior: body language, tone of voice, sarcasm, disrespect directed at the defense but not at the plaintiff. It's so obvious that I'm surprised he would be so blatantly prejudiced. Still, some judges are that arrogant, I hear, especially those who know how to hide behind the spruced up record. The sonofabitch Kaplan should be videotaped but we know that is forbidden -- a pinhole camera wouldn't get past security but a long-range zoom would capture his misbehavior, say the roof of The Tombs a block away, or from the balcony of an apartment house a hundred feet from the court's window. Damn, I believe one of the defense helpers might live in that building, so maybe the true record is being done. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 21:57:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA22119 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:57:32 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f254.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.27]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA22116 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:57:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 86176 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jun 2000 01:59:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000618015905.86175.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.253.13.31 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:59:05 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.253.13.31] From: "Fire Drake" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] ReCss Non-:P Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:59:05 MDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 21:58:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA22194 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:58:10 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f84.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA22159 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:58:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 35239 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jun 2000 01:59:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20000618015938.35238.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.253.13.31 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:59:38 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.253.13.31] From: "Fire Drake" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] ReCss NonInf -:P Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:59:38 MDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 22:05:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA22351 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:05:37 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f127.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.127]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA22348 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:05:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 98314 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jun 2000 02:07:10 -0000 Message-ID: <20000618020710.98313.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.253.13.31 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:07:10 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.253.13.31] From: "Fire Drake" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:07:10 MDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu First Of All I'm Sorry But It Seems Hotmail Sent 3 Or For Copys Of This Message For No Reason While I Was Working On It. But I was wondering, It's clear there will be some NonInf. for DeCSS but I wondered if any one had tought of making a ReCSS to prove NonInf. If someone would write a app the encodes stuff to CSS and you could use DeCSS to decode it this would prove it :P Or maybe such thing exist, for one I guess the DVD makers must have one *L* I know CSS is top week for any effective enkripti0n but I see people using simple encription all the time. If one guy had something like a short homemoive and you could have DeCSS to decript it that would hjave to prove it. Altought looking at some testamony and 'match set game' I'm not sure if you still need it *L* - Drake ------------------------------------- ZZZ ZZZ ZZ ZZZ ZZ ZZ Z K K ZZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z K K Z ZZ Z ZZ ZZZ Z Z ZZ ZZZ KK ZZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z K K Z Z ZZZ Z Z ZZZ ZZ Z Z Z Z K K ZZZ ------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 22:11:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA22425 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:11:23 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA22422 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:11:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 31197 invoked by uid 502); 18 Jun 2000 02:16:12 -0000 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:16:12 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA Message-ID: <20000617221612.D23755@linuxpower.org> References: <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net>; from John Young on Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:45:38PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:45:38PM -0400, John Young wrote: > Rob Warren wrote: > > >Kaplan's been fairly unbiased since day one. > > > >Of course, most folks on our side don't want to hear that. Painting > >ourselves as martyrs is much more fun. > > Kaplan has been far from unbiased, based on watching and hearing > him in court insult, berate, cajole and disparage the defense team > from day one. Only in the protective order hearing did I hear him > show a bit of balance, and even there he harangued Garbus far > more than he did the plaintiffs' and press' counsel. He has made > no bones about favoring MPAA's case. Let's keep in mind that - no disrespect intended - the defense team didn't really have much on the ball in the early rounds. They showed up with different copies of the DMCA (rather than the standing law); they fumbled through general procedure; they complained a lot; they were accompanied by a small army of self-righteous zealots who, to the judges eyes, were intent on turning his courtroom into a circus. Worst of all, in that early injunction hearing, the defense argued piracy issues (which has always been the MPAA PR battle, not necessarily their court battle) rather than direct 1201 exemption points; Kaplan finally got tired of having the basic questions evaded and ruled against the defense. Meanwhile, certain individuals in the zealot camp have been doing their damnedest - since day one - to make it sound like Big Bad Government is cracking down on Poor Downtrodden Linux Users, to the extent of outright making up quotes attributed to Kaplan. One such quote was the "I'll give you a runaway train if you want it" quote, which made the rounds of Slashdot after being reported by a "firsthand observer"; according to the transcripts, this quote never was made. It didn't stop people from flying it as a banner into battle. I would argue that Kaplan didn't go into this biased. If he's biased now, we made him that way. > His written orders do not convey the full range of his behavior: body > language, tone of voice, sarcasm, disrespect directed at the defense > but not at the plaintiff. > > It's so obvious that I'm surprised he would be so blatantly prejudiced. > > Still, some judges are that arrogant, I hear, especially those who know > how to hide behind the spruced up record. The sonofabitch Kaplan > should be videotaped but we know that is forbidden -- a pinhole camera > wouldn't get past security but a long-range zoom would capture his > misbehavior, say the roof of The Tombs a block away, or from the > balcony of an apartment house a hundred feet from the court's > window. Damn, I believe one of the defense helpers might > live in that building, so maybe the true record is being done. Are you accusing a United Stated judge of falsifying court transcripts? Is that what you're saying here? Are you claiming that one thing is being said in court and something entirely different is being recorded on transcript? I'd tread carefully with your answer. You're posting in a public list. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 22:38:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA22723 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:38:19 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA22720 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:38:18 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c2T2-174.015.popsite.net [216.126.185.174]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA27165 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000617192919.00a98680@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:37:58 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA In-Reply-To: <20000617221612.D23755@linuxpower.org> References: <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> 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 10:16 PM 6/17/2000 -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: >On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:45:38PM -0400, John Young wrote: > > > His written orders do not convey the full range of his behavior: body > > language, tone of voice, sarcasm, disrespect directed at the defense > > but not at the plaintiff. > > > > It's so obvious that I'm surprised he would be so blatantly prejudiced. > > > > Still, some judges are that arrogant, I hear, especially those who know > > how to hide behind the spruced up record. The sonofabitch Kaplan > > should be videotaped but we know that is forbidden -- a pinhole camera > > wouldn't get past security but a long-range zoom would capture his > > misbehavior, say the roof of The Tombs a block away, or from the > > balcony of an apartment house a hundred feet from the court's > > window. Damn, I believe one of the defense helpers might > > live in that building, so maybe the true record is being done. > >Are you accusing a United Stated judge of falsifying court transcripts? >Is that what you're saying here? Are you claiming that one thing is >being said in court and something entirely different is being recorded >on transcript? > >I'd tread carefully with your answer. You're posting in a public list. John will speak for himself (or not, as he chooses), but my read is that he is saying pretty much exactly what I alluded to last night in my response to Chris Moseng's query about deposition objections. A cold, paper transcript often reads entirely differently to those who weren't there than to those who were, because the transcript gives no clue about body language, inflection, pauses, dripping sarcasm, etc. I know exactly how to convey one meaning "live", while knowing that it will read entirely differently in the transcript. I do not assume that Kaplan is less adept than I am - it is an art and skill, but not one unique to me. And I believe that is the sole point John was making. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 17 22:47:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA22915 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:47:45 -0400 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 WAA22912 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:47:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA16475 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:02:21 -0700 From: Jim Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:01:12 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29.2] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20000617192919.00a98680@cyberpass.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000617192919.00a98680@cyberpass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061719022103.25568@www.rjmconsulting.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I kind of read at least one of the transcripts as showing that Kaplan is becoming more impressed with how the defense is getting its act together. I think that's one primary reason for the fact that he appears to be losing some of his bias and working fairly with both sides. I am pretty sure he wasn't before - even recently - but I've noticed some changes in tone recently. Anyone else noticed that? --Russell On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, you wrote: > At 10:16 PM 6/17/2000 -0400, greslin@linuxpower.org wrote: > >On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:45:38PM -0400, John Young wrote: > > > > > His written orders do not convey the full range of his behavior: body > > > language, tone of voice, sarcasm, disrespect directed at the defense > > > but not at the plaintiff. > > > > > > It's so obvious that I'm surprised he would be so blatantly prejudiced. > > > > > > Still, some judges are that arrogant, I hear, especially those who know > > > how to hide behind the spruced up record. The sonofabitch Kaplan > > > should be videotaped but we know that is forbidden -- a pinhole camera > > > wouldn't get past security but a long-range zoom would capture his > > > misbehavior, say the roof of The Tombs a block away, or from the > > > balcony of an apartment house a hundred feet from the court's > > > window. Damn, I believe one of the defense helpers might > > > live in that building, so maybe the true record is being done. > > > >Are you accusing a United Stated judge of falsifying court transcripts? > >Is that what you're saying here? Are you claiming that one thing is > >being said in court and something entirely different is being recorded > >on transcript? > > > >I'd tread carefully with your answer. You're posting in a public list. > > John will speak for himself (or not, as he chooses), but my read is that he > is saying pretty much exactly what I alluded to last night in my response > to Chris Moseng's query about deposition objections. A cold, paper > transcript often reads entirely differently to those who weren't there than > to those who were, because the transcript gives no clue about body > language, inflection, pauses, dripping sarcasm, etc. > > I know exactly how to convey one meaning "live", while knowing that it will > read entirely differently in the transcript. I do not assume that Kaplan > is less adept than I am - it is an art and skill, but not one unique to > me. And I believe that is the sole point John was making. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net > Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) > 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 > Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org -- Jim 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 Sat Jun 17 23:30:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA24019 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:30:20 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA24016 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:30:19 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:35:58 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DC5@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:35:57 -0400 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 I have always been an advocate of cameras in courts, except under certain limited circumstances. The way I see it is, trials must be public according to the constitution and now that we have cameras, they can be as public as the framers intended, and as the people deserve. This case is a perfect example of why. A lot of people, those on the list and what not, are very interested in the outcome of the proceedings. We are trying to read the record and figure out what is going on. It would be best if we could see a video (hey, maybe even on DVD). One thing I hope will happen when the trial starts is that we can have a polite and interested presence in the courtroom. If possible, I will wash my nice suit and figure out how to get from Boston to Kaplan's courtroom(*). I think that the attentive interested group present for the Press Bar Hearing affected the professionalism of the hearing and the decision. I take the long view on these things. We used to have a justice system where popularity of the defendant and rumors of the crime had a lot to do with the outcome. The name of the system was: lynch mobs. I don't think we ever want to go back to that, no matter what. (*) Directions welcome. Yes I will cut my hair first, even though there ain't much on the top of my head :(. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 00:44:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA24658 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:44:42 -0400 Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA24655 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:44:41 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([24.13.176.232]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with ESMTP id <20000618044645.ASD17750.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@[192.168.1.100]> for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:46:45 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:46:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match From: Danny Silverman To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00061718522700.08636@yuggoth> 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 there are several DVD drives at Fry's that come w/out software. We should have freedom of choice of software, but I thought that was basically the whole point of this case... In the Mac world, Apple offers a free DVD player program, but it sucks and I want a better one. However, with Apple's free one available, no one sells one, and no one has the incentive to make an alternative because they would have to pay the DVDCCA licensing fees, etc. and then would have to make the money/effort back. Oh, by the way, since I don't think I mentioned it before, with Apple's player it IS possible to take screenshots. That is probalby just a limitation of most software that plays hardware-decoded DVDs. So in case anyone was going to make a point about that - don't. \\|// (o o) ------------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------------------------- "Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity." - Charles Mingus ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Danny Silverman | webmaster@mindwire.org Webmaster, EduDyne Foundation | http://www.mindwire.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Jeremy Erwin > Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:50:06 -0400 > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match > > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, you wrote: > >> BTW, do DVD drives come bundled with SW for viewing DVDs? >> Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com > Some of them do. My Iomagic 6x DVD came with "PowerDVD" 1.5.. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 00:53:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA24860 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:53:33 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA24857 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:53:32 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 133X7P-0000WV-00; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:55:35 -0700 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:55:35 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Message-ID: <20000617215535.Y15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <00061718522700.08636@yuggoth> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from dsilverman@home.com on Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:46:45PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Danny Silverman writes: > In the Mac world, Apple offers a free DVD player program, but it sucks and I > want a better one. However, with Apple's free one available, no one sells > one, and no one has the incentive to make an alternative because they would > have to pay the DVDCCA licensing fees, etc. and then would have to make the > money/effort back. > > Oh, by the way, since I don't think I mentioned it before, with Apple's > player it IS possible to take screenshots. That is probalby just a > limitation of most software that plays hardware-decoded DVDs. So in case > anyone was going to make a point about that - don't. You shouldn't have to buy Mac hardware to make screenshots of DVD movie frames. -- 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 Jun 18 01:24:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA25045 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:24:11 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA25042 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:24:09 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA07329 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:25:59 -0500 Message-ID: <394C5BCB.859B96BE@mninter.net> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:19:07 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match References: <00061718522700.08636@yuggoth> <20000617215535.Y15588@zork.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 > Danny Silverman writes: > > Oh, by the way, since I don't think I mentioned it before, with > > Apple's player it IS possible to take screenshots. That is > > probalby just a limitation of most software that plays > > hardware-decoded DVDs. You're right, from the MPAA's perspective being able to take screenshots on MacOS is a software limitation. All it takes is a cease and desist letter to convince Apple to disable that keystroke while using the DVD player. It's probably in violation of their CSS license. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 01:43:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA25217 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:43:16 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA25214 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:43:15 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA08106 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:45:07 -0500 Message-ID: <394C6045.F73B1B69@mninter.net> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:38:13 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match References: <394B1439.602AE653@mninter.net> <20000617125119.W15588@zork.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 People more conversant with the appropriate rulings, please correct me: > Industry associations, including closed industry associations, NDAs, > trade secret licenses, even patent licenses and cross-licenses are > (alas) fairly common in the technology industry. > > Many things are manufactured which conform to closed standards which > are only available under NDA upon payment of a license fee. I understand that rulings involving copyright have expressly limited the freedom with which copyright holders might use the "monopoly" granted in their intellectual product to tie its purchase to another, unrelated product. It would be like printing all your books in invisible ink, and making people purchase the magic marker separately. This creates a market for your magic markers, and gives you a new monopoly. Sounds as much like a violation of anti-trust as I can imagine. People have mentioned cases involving Morton Salt and US v. Paramount as precedent for this. Thus, NDAs and licenses are not what is illegal, it is the bundling of a copyrighted work and an unrelated product in order to use/access the work. > Many things are manufactured which implement a patented technique > under the terms of a patent license. As I understand it CSS is not patented/patentable (and I'm sure cryptologists would challenge any such patent). Can someone expand on this explanation, or correct it? It is a "trade secret," maybe, and there is a suit regarding this in California. It's doomed, but it is in progress anyway. The key is that it is not against the law to stumble upon a trade secret independent of the primary source (thus the importance of legal reverse engineering). If a trade secret is/becomes transparent, it is not a trade secret. > Is _all_ of this stuff illegal under antitrust law? I think the above mentioned rulings are a synthesis of antitrust common sense and copyright's constitutionally necessary limitations. Then again, I'm a layperson. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 03:20:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA25725 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:20:09 -0400 Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA25721 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:19:43 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([24.13.176.232]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with ESMTP id <20000618072114.AFC24286.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@[192.168.1.100]> for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:21:14 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:21:15 -0700 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match From: Danny Silverman To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <394C5BCB.859B96BE@mninter.net> 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 > You're right, from the MPAA's perspective being able to take screenshots > on MacOS is a software limitation. All it takes is a cease and desist > letter to convince Apple to disable that keystroke while using the DVD > player. It's probably in violation of their CSS license. the point that I was making is that the current software that doesn't allow you to take screenshots on the PC side probably acts that way simply because Windows screenshots are not native to the OS and the video being displayed is piped from the decoder chip on the graphics card directly to the video buffer, or something like that, bypassing the OS. I'm really not sure about this, but I assume the reason you can take screenshots on Mac DVD player is because 1) it is software based and 2) apple's screen capture command is built into the OS. I doubt this is an MPAA-imposed limitation. It would be interesting to test this on other software-decode DVD players, but I don't know of any on the PC side. I would say don't be too over-righteous. I hate the MPAA et. al. as much as the rest of you, but we can't spread lies and FUD, or else we are no better than them. \\|// (o o) ------------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------------------------- "Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity." - Charles Mingus ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Danny Silverman | webmaster@mindwire.org Webmaster, EduDyne Foundation | http://www.mindwire.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Chris Moseng > Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:19:07 -0500 > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match > > >> Danny Silverman writes: > >>> Oh, by the way, since I don't think I mentioned it before, with >>> Apple's player it IS possible to take screenshots. That is >>> probalby just a limitation of most software that plays >>> hardware-decoded DVDs. > > You're right, from the MPAA's perspective being able to take screenshots > on MacOS is a software limitation. All it takes is a cease and desist > letter to convince Apple to disable that keystroke while using the DVD > player. It's probably in violation of their CSS license. > > Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 03:25:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA25767 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:25:49 -0400 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 DAA25764 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:25:47 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 133ZTN-0000VJ-00 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:26:25 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:26:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA FAQ Rebuttal 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 Lots of changes to the MPAA faq: Every question now at least has an answer. Some need more citations. Specifically, the "fair use", "first sale", and "copyright expiration" sections. Most things have been toned down quite a bit. Every question has been at least re-visited. The whole document could use another spell-checking (mine doesn't work) Some answers could still be simplified - some others should be elaborated on. I need some input on what to do with the credits section - I can put in every contributor's name and email address, but some people may not like that. So, if you want credit and you did contribute, email me with what you would like to include in the document ("Name, email", or just "name") The document is still far from complete - but I think it is much better than it was. I'd like people to dissect my changes, and hopefully move this towards "beta" quality! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:26:42 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 133ZSG-0000ez-00; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:25:16 -0700 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:25:16 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Message-ID: <20000618002516.Z15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <394B1439.602AE653@mninter.net> <20000617125119.W15588@zork.net> <394C6045.F73B1B69@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <394C6045.F73B1B69@mninter.net>; from moseng@mninter.net on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 12:38:13AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chris Moseng writes: > > Many things are manufactured which conform to closed standards which > > are only available under NDA upon payment of a license fee. > > I understand that rulings involving copyright have expressly limited the > freedom with which copyright holders might use the "monopoly" granted in > their intellectual product to tie its purchase to another, unrelated > product. Sure, how do those rulings apply to this situation? That's especially of interest because those cases were before TPMs and paracopyright laws, as far as I know. > Thus, NDAs and licenses are not what is illegal, it is the bundling of a > copyrighted work and an unrelated product in order to use/access the > work. Counter: without NDAs, there would be no way to have a TPM system work at all. [This is misleading, but someone might argue it.] Along with those NDAs, we have a right to _at least_ impose reasonable and necessary conditions for the security of the manufactured products. (Absent a strong antitrust argument, we should also have the right to do other stuff in those NDAs.) This is true _with or without_ the DMCA, as we had copy protection in the past and we aggresively defended the details of copy protection schemes and tried our best to make them available only under license. Counter 2: all relevant markets in technology are highly competitive (unless you define a relevant market to include technology which can defeat CSS, and antitrust law should not force us to allow competition from such products). There are many CSS licensees who produce a wide variety of CSS-compliant devices, so consumers have a great deal of choice. In addition, CSS licenses continue to be available on a nondiscriminatory basis to any company which wishes to enter the market. The fees charged should be considered nominal. This explains why new CSS licensees continue to sign up every day(?). Counter 3: the studios aren't even involved in these arrangements; they have just chosen to "buy the services" of the DVD industry in order to distribute their movies. The DVD industry has implemented the agreements that it thought were most appropriate in order to provide products which meet the needs of consumers and studios alike. The fact that the DMCA allows the innocent studios to sue individuals for competing with the established DVD industry is totally irrelevant. :-) I'd start my answer to the second argument by talking about region codes; it is difficult to explain how a huge cross-license agreement meant to prevent the creation of region-free players is _not_ a restraint of trade, though that definitely doesn't mean it's illegal. > > Many things are manufactured which implement a patented technique > > under the terms of a patent license. > > As I understand it CSS is not patented/patentable (and I'm sure > cryptologists would challenge any such patent). Can someone expand on > this explanation, or correct it? > > It is a "trade secret," maybe, and there is a suit regarding this in > California. It's doomed, but it is in progress anyway. > > The key is that it is not against the law to stumble upon a trade secret > independent of the primary source (thus the importance of legal reverse > engineering). If a trade secret is/becomes transparent, it is not a > trade secret. Yes, I understand that. I'm just using patents as an example. They are widespread and they are used in a lot of ways which may have at least a superficial similarity to the CSS regime. -- 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 Jun 18 04:27:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA26452 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:27:37 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA26440 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:25:14 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA13703 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:11:30 -0500 Message-ID: <394C85A1.70CFC284@mninter.net> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:17:37 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match 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 Danny Silverman wrote: > the point that I was making is that the current software that > doesn't allow you to take screenshots on the PC side probably acts > that way simply because Windows screenshots are not native to the OS > and the video being displayed is piped from the decoder chip on the > graphics card directly to the video buffer, or something like that, Basically this is correct. In the case of the Dxr2 the MPEG 2 data is positioned on screen by an overlay mechanism. The software tells the graphics card to display a purple window and the Dxr2 takes the output of the graphics card and puts a movie where the purple window was. Just like a public-access cable bluescreen effect. Most other hardware decoders operate on a similar principle, but may take the video data before it is rendered to analog RGB from an internal bus. Thus, dumping the screen buffer of the video card to file will not capture the movie because it is not there. > bypassing the OS. I'm really not sure about this, but I assume the > reason you can take screenshots on Mac DVD player is because 1) it > is software based and 2) apple's screen capture command is built > into the OS. That was my assumption, too. > I doubt this is an MPAA-imposed limitation. It would > be interesting to test this on other software-decode DVD players, > but I don't know of any on the PC side. I didn't mean that allowing screen captures would specifically violate a clause in the CSS license, but I guess I made it sound that way. I meant, more generally, that the practice of making screen grabs of a DVD movie would likely be considerd an unauthorized use/access by the plaintiffs, given their testimony, and that is enough to get yourself into "deep legal water" (my new favorite phrase, thanks Mr. Valenti). As such, I wouldn't be surprised that the MPAA has "requested" that Apple look into preventing this functionality in future releases in order to strengthen their access-control measures. After all, if it's permissible to go and grab video stills right off the bus to make screen grabs, how is that different from nabbing the whole thing after decryption? There is no difference. Both, the plaintiffs would assert, are unlawful circumvention. A specious assertion, but asserted all the same.** > I would say don't be too over-righteous. I hate the MPAA et. al. > as much as the rest of you, but we can't spread lies and FUD, or else > we are no better than them. I'm just extrapolating plaintiff's positions to probable outcomes. ------ **And this is my (our?) major issue with the MPAA access license as it exists (which is not at all, execpt through my understanding of their expectations of the users through their depositions). Basically, they say that authorized access is whatever suits their fancy, but its basic scope is "anything your DVD player is naturally designed to do, in isolation from all third-party software or hardware." So, even if you accessed the contents of the DVD legitimately through a standard function of the DVD ("Play."), if you then take the results of that function and leverage it to make use of the material (screen capture, strip macrovision, pipe to video capture card), the plaintiffs will claim unauthorized access. In other words, they are defining authorization not through a specific license or set of restrictions and permissions, but by what use you ultimatly make of the accessed material. This, as I see it, is why they have been unable to tell us when a person is authorized to access a DVD. The honest answer really is "it depends." They will decide whether you have violated to right to access dependant on what you did with the accessed material (stored it, copied it, moved it, re-rendered it, sent it to /dev/null, wore it as a party hat, used the output to generate random numbers, printed it out and walpapered your apartment with it...) Sorry. A lot of this is strictly list-redundant, and some just incoherent. I've had an odd day. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 05:09:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA26744 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:09:19 -0400 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA26741 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:09:16 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inij3r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.76.123]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA32154 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:54:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006180854.EAA32154@granger.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:52:55 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA In-Reply-To: <20000617221612.D23755@linuxpower.org> References: <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.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 Kaplan is hungrier for publicity than the scorpions in a bottle. He's using the case for his purposes. Nothing unusual about judge's doing that, they're never as objective as their spin pretends, from the Supremes down to the justices of the peace. A few in SDNY I've observed are more subtle than Kaplan. But they all, and there are a bunch of them in SDNY, jockey for the limelight even as they feign disinterest. New York is obessessed with media attention, it's a local disease fed by the local homeboy corporate pushers of that drug. The only zealots in the hearings I've attended is Kaplan, a couple of the plaintiffs' counsel and MPAA's PR reps. I have not seen anyone on the defense side act up in court or outside it for that matter, though Garbus has flair for just skimming that -- and he is a genius at rattling Kaplan and the plaintiffs. It doesn't take a wizard to see that how much of what Kaplan accuses the defense, and the plaintiffs, fits him. He grandstands and pontificates far more than anyone in the court. Prejudicial distinterest, enforced justice of a particular bias, yeah, that's what he propounds in the record and moreso in his lollygagging on the bench. He's lazy, tired of bullshit corporate litigation, looking for excitement. He's best when challenged, and that might be what's kicking in with Garbus and the Net's motley crew, as with Penfield Jackson. Sit in on a few agonzingly boring federal cases and you'll see why being a federal judge is one of the worst and best jobs in the world. You can see brains rotting. Hell, courthouse security is more interesting than the drone that's being pretentiously protected. Yeah, and federal courthouses are way too luxurious, SDNY's are a scandal -- which got the administrative judge a lot of face time, negative better than none at all his club buddies laughed. What annoys me are the calls for proper behavior among defendants and supporters to avoid offending the judge. Judges can take care of themselves, as Kaplan said of the prominents, and meaning himself. I say offend the judge, he thrives on being a scorpion. Yes, the record fails to show that, but that's the well-known fault of records: they are not truthful, they merely present an illusion of truth, and what they leave out in the name of objectivity is what all the screaming is about. Printed text is a slice of reality, very thin. Voice is another. Same with video, audio tapes. So, yeah, come to the hearings, see about 50% of reality, the rest is confidential, privileged, decided in clubhouses. Attack Kaplan in public, please your honor and his. He craves anecdotal material for his bio, in competition with his peers. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 06:00:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA27574 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 06:00:38 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA27568 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:59:35 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA20151 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:00:57 -0500 Message-ID: <394C9F4A.62AA2BC0@mninter.net> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:07:06 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] The DIVX (pay-per-failed-venture) analogy 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 There are many elements of the DIVX scheme that could shed light on various elements of this case. I want to focus on one here: the sunset of the authorizing authority and its relation to the publication of a work. DIVX, the DMCA protection-measure poster child, went belly up June 16, 1999 (why, that was one year ago almost to the day!) Despite the misinformation reported to come directly from CC about DIVX in its "heyday," most consumers realized that they were entering into a pay-per-use scheme with severe limits on access. Forward-thinking consumers probably also realized that the limits would also be time-sensitive. Someday, DIVX's number would come up, and access authorization would be denied or unavailable (barring reverse- engineering of the server-player authentication mechanism and some 'generous soul' hosting a computer and 1-800 number in perpetuity. Come to think of it, this may have been a cheaper solution for CC than buying everyone off). In any case, purchasing a DIVX disk came with the understanding that someday its contents would be beyond reach, as access could no longer be authorized. This happened sooner rather than later, but because it relied on a corporate infrastructure its eventual expiration was certain. A year later the spectre of CSS looms (it didn't seem so bad last year, did it?). Except this access protection measure has potency DIVX never had. DVDs have critical mass. Material is being exclusively "published" on DVD. The studios are *serious* this time. Finally, I get to the point: The plaintiffs are asserting that access to the work is protected by a TPM. They assert that access can be authorized or unauthorized. Unauthorized access is unlawful per 1201. Never mind or access is authorized in an instant case--think of it in the abstract, along the infinite timeline. Who grants authorization? The entity with authority to grant access, the holder of the copyright (or their designee?). When will access be authorized? Access will be authorized only during such time as the entity with authority exists and is willing to grant authorization. This is necessarily finite. See DIVX. Imagine for some reason (illness, perhaps) I "purchased" The Tin Drum on DIVX. The Tin Drum is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder's designee (Circuit City's subsidiary) grants me authorized access. The next week, DIVX goes does the permanent stock split and no longer exists to grant me authorization. I cannot access the work. Even if I paid to have anytime access to the work. Even if there is fair use to be made of the work. Even when the copyright expires. Now, apply the scenario to DVDs. Where does the analogy fall apart? Is it because my DVD player is not calling into the DVDCCA/MPAA/Studio and asking for permission? Is it the explicit agreement that DIVX had with its customers? Remember, there is no sunset clause in the DIVX customer agreement (http://www.dvdresource.com/contributions/divxagreement.shtml), but it does disclaim responsibility for "interruptions in service." Presumably the proxy rights to designate authorization fell back to the studios when DIVX died. I am sure every day the various studios happily field authorization requests from abandoned DIVX consumers. What can we learn from this? I'm not entirely sure, but I'm comfortable saying it has to do with the sunset of an authorization body and with whether or not the material on the disc can be considered published. Basically, if there is no way to obtain authorization, should a consumer be held to 1201? What if there is a way, but it is unpublicized or results in a blanket denial of authorization? Was the material on a DIVX disk considered published? Could consumers make fair use of a DIVX-fixed work? Can they do it today, in the absence of the CC subsidiary granting authorization? Would trafficking in a DIVX circumvention device violate 1201? Would using it? What about after the work's copyright has expired? Who would sue? >From the other perspective, does a consumer have any recourse when their DVD player doesn't play new DVDs because the key's been revoked? Can a consumer be held in violation of 1201 when an authorizing body never explicitly grants access, just denies it post hoc? Suppose such a caveat were printed on all DVDs? Why should a consumer of a published work be required to ask for access authorization at all? Does the existence of a TPM mean the work is not published, but behind large, locked doors? And, moving way too far into this line of fantasy, does congress have the right to give copyright holders such large doors? I suppose this is another final constitutionalty defense. Can you tell how many ways I take exception to the DMCA yet? How might DIVX analogies benefit the defense? The plaintiffs? More questions than answers here, some have been seen before, I suppose. The DIVX analogy has been mentioned in the list in March (0 followups), and in passing other times. Maybe the list just doesn't find it interesting. Well, I've already got all this written, might as well try it again. Basically, all I see with CSS is DIVX with double the faceless corporate rigamaroll and a more subtle brand of fascism. Oh, and I know that the bigger questions will probably not be legally answered for years. I'm just musing. Hopefully some of this isn't just noise, I do think that the analogy to DIVX can be helpful. Any takers? Chris (noisy) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 08:43:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA28455 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:43:13 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA28452 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:43:07 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07244 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.33.202] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:48:39 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Sun, 18 Jun 00 08:48:39 -0500 Message-ID: <000301bfd923$06153880$d502fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: <394B1439.602AE653@mninter.net> <20000617125119.W15588@zork.net> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:45:01 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > IMHO, even if the DeCSS case is dismissed, I would like to see the MPAA > > held accountable for the illegal tying that they are doing. I made a few mistakes in my last comment: (1) it was judge jackson's findings of -law-, not -fact-, that talk about Jefferson Parish. his analysis isn't rock-solid however. don't quote me on that though. doh. (2) there are really a number of ways to attack an illegal tying arrangement Sherman Act s 1, as a restraint of trade Sherman Act s 2, as an attempt to monopolize through unlawful means Clayton Act s 3, as an illegal tie-in sale (same theory and proof as Sherman Act, really) FTC Act s 5, as an unfair method of competition (only the FTC can do this) I'm writing most of this off the top of my head, its been a year since antitrust law. > Industry associations, including closed industry associations, NDAs, > trade secret licenses, even patent licenses and cross-licenses are > (alas) fairly common in the technology industry. There are statutory protections against some antitrust provisions for joint ventures (research and non-research), as long as they go through a silly registration procedure with the government. Industry associations may not share recent production and price information, due to the danger of price fixing, nor may they enforce rules which de facto set prices. However, industry associations can do most other things: they can lobby for legislative permission to do otherwise anticompetitive things, they can collect statistical information, they can keep out would be competitors from the association. Trade secret and patent licenses are given a much wider berth than times past: you can't ask someone to pay patent royalties beyond the end of the patent term, but you can give them all rights through a lump sum payment, payable through a "loan" with payments that extend beyond the patent term (essentially the same result). Cross-licensing arrangements are dangerous when one party holds a "blocking patent" against the rest of an industry; nonetheless the Federal Circuit, in Intel v. Intergraph, last year determined that a company (Intel) is free to use a rightfully held patent to block other competition in an industry as part of their exclusive right, regardless of anticompetitive effect or market power. If cross-licensing of a patent is secondary to an agreement, so its "pretextual" to a price-fixing scheme between companies, there may be an antitrust remedy, but its hard to show these things. Again this is all from memory, and isn't meant to be legal advice, just my take on the current state of the law. > Many things are manufactured which conform to closed standards which > are only available under NDA upon payment of a license fee. Sure, and Bleem (Sony v. Bleem), Nintendo (Atari v. Nintendo), and Connectix have all figured out (among many others; samba support in linux, wine) how to get around these by RE. The incideous effect (I'm sure which was not lost on the MPAA and computer industry execs when lobbying for the DMCA) of 17 USC s 1201 is that, as interpreted by the plaintiffs, it gives them a "de novo" intellectual property right. I'm talking about more than "para-copyright" here. Take a token copyrighted work, or more important, take an operating system with its APIs and all (say, Winux2001) (god forbid, but look at OS X). A technological measure is applied which prevents unlicensed -access- to the OS files to prevent piracy, pretextually. As an intended side effect, the "privileged" copying (see Connectix) for RE is not possible without circumvention. But circumvention is illegal under 1201, -regardless of the intent- of the circumventor. Ideas and methods are protected in a "black box", ad infinitum, and there is nothing you can do about it. [add sinister laugh]. Therein lies the key--can you ban circumvention regardless of intent? Congress certainly can ban circumvention with the intent to pirate, but circumvention with the intent to exercise well established fair use rights? Under the MPAA interpretation of the DMCA, they now have a permanent, patent-like right to the ideas in their software, as the act of accessing the code is made illegal. Does this reasonablye jive with the text, legislative history, congressional intent, or Constitutional underpinnings, of the DMCA? Your instinct is right, though, about an antitrust problem. Hopefully, after this case, it will be established that 1201 cannot be used for non-copyright purposes. Using 1201 in such a manner should be copyright misuse, as you are using technological measures (in the same way you would use contractual provisions in traditional copyright misuse) to enforce rights which you simply do not have. It is more nefarious here, as a consumer has no idea what she is agreeing to (how does Joe or Jane Consumer know what limitations are in the code of their software, or the chips in their computer) whereas in a contract, at least, is in (some type of approximation of) english. When such paracopyright rights are hidden in technological measures, you get the strange problem of this case, where we don't know exactly what is legal and what is illegal until the plaintiff tells us what they consider the scope of their access control. > Many things are manufactured which implement a patented technique > under the terms of a patent license. The manufactured goods, traditionally, don't infringe patented "methods" used to make them, although if you violate the patent overseas, and import the manufactured goods, you are liable under 35 usc 271. Now, its worse: if the goods can only normally be made by the patented method, you can infringe through the goods (contributorily, I think) as well as the method. > Is _all_ of this stuff illegal under antitrust law? No, actually only a small subset is illegal. An even smaller subset can be shown in court to be illegal. And this is before you show that you were injured because of the conduct. > If not, what differences exist between the MPAA/DVD CCA regime and > other closed standard/trade association/technology licensing regimes > which make the one illegal where the others are not? This one is illegal, IMHO, because it uses copyright access controls to enforce much more than copyright exclusive rights. In real life, they have some cartel characteristics, but the much larger structural issues with the MPAA are way off topic (as if this whole post was on topic). > (I know there _are_ differences -- I'd like to hear why they are > significant.) The MPAA, as a trade organization, hasn't commited a (chargeable) antitrust violation. RICO violation, maybe (this is a sarcastic jest, and for MPAA eyes reading this, I am in no way accusing the MPAA of committing two predicate acts for a RICO charge). But the forced playback of previews before the movie, is that illegal bundling? Maybe; it is merely a way to say to consumers your license to the movie is predicated on you watching these commercials first. Its a really complex issue. The old bundling case helps, but its not the same. The cross-licensing, is that illegal? Maybe; if both parties have valid IP (MPAA movies, DVDCCA patents and trade secrets) it is very hard to show illegality. You'd have to show the arrangement is pretextual. The leveraging of the movie market to control DVD player market? Not sure. Certainly power in the tying market, but the DVD player market isn't a staple good for IP purposes, and the only ones harmed are excluded DVD player people (Linux developers, I guess). I'm not sure how you would apply that antitrust theory to this case. The defendant may not have standing to enforce their rights. The use of technological measures to enforce paracopyright rights not recognized by any law? This is the strongest antitrust argument, in my almost-but-not-quite-yet lawyerly opinion. Antitrust/misuse: When you try to create IP rights out of thin air, that is when you run the risk of copyright misuse. If the MPAA were found to have committed copyright misuse, the copyright in the underlying work would be rendered unenforceable until the misuse is remedied. In this case, that could mean they could not enforce access controls under 1201 until they narrowed the scope, or, ironically, they could temporarily lose the right to enforce the copyright on the underlying works. Wouldn't that be a great PR gift, and a welcome outcome to the case? How would CNN report that? :) Oh yeah, I forgot, I have to study now. DMCA: If something, especially a form of speech, has a legal use, and an illegal use, you cannot ban it unless you can show the individual's intent to use it illegally or that is primarily used for illegal purposes. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 09:02:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA28646 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:02:48 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA28643 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:02:42 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10122 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:15:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.33.202] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:08:16 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Sun, 18 Jun 00 09:08:16 -0500 Message-ID: <003901bfd925$c416a920$d502fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: <394B1439.602AE653@mninter.net> <20000617125119.W15588@zork.net> <394C6045.F73B1B69@mninter.net> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:04:40 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > I understand that rulings involving copyright have expressly limited the > freedom with which copyright holders might use the "monopoly" granted in > their intellectual product to tie its purchase to another, unrelated > product. Yes, unless 1201 gives copyright owners "license" to use any access controls they please, so long as they protect a copyrighted work. > It would be like printing all your books in invisible ink, and making > people purchase the magic marker separately. This creates a market for > your magic markers, and gives you a new monopoly. Sounds as much like a > violation of anti-trust as I can imagine. People have mentioned cases > involving Morton Salt and US v. Paramount as precedent for this. Which you -can- do, unfortunately. Someone can sell you "crippleware" and you have to buy a second key to get full access. The difference here is the consumer is made to believe they are getting full home use rights, while the distributor is actually barring most fair uses in toto under the legislative guise of 1201. > Thus, NDAs and licenses are not what is illegal, it is the bundling of a > copyrighted work and an unrelated product in order to use/access the > work. Only if the unrelated work is a "staple" good, like salt in Morton Salt. DVD players are not a staple good, and DVD decoder software/hardware are certainly not a staple good, as the sole purpose of such software/hardware is to decode the DVDs containing copyrighted material. > As I understand it CSS is not patented/patentable (and I'm sure > cryptologists would challenge any such patent). Can someone expand on > this explanation, or correct it? CSS is patentable, and there are many patents surrounding CSS. For instance, Fire Drake's suggestion that we create a ReCSS encryption program would be a violation of the CSS patent; even if created for litigation, it would allow the MPAA to bring a patent claim into the case. Its a very bad idea, in my opinion, and I'm not going to do it. Many dumb ideas are patented, many software ideas are now patented. DeCSS itself doesn't fall into the patents I've seen, as most of them cover encryption, not decryption, but there are new patents appearing every day, and it is something to worry about. > It is a "trade secret," maybe, and there is a suit regarding this in > California. It's doomed, but it is in progress anyway. > The key is that it is not against the law to stumble upon a trade secret > independent of the primary source (thus the importance of legal reverse > engineering). If a trade secret is/becomes transparent, it is not a > trade secret. Unless you copyright your trade secret and put an access control on it. Then any access to the secret, regardless of intent, violates 1201! You have time-unlimited, patent-like IP protection! Anyone think this was the -intent- of Congress with 1201? Anyone find -this- in the legislative history? In the statute itself? Supported by the constitution? Seems like zero for four there. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 11:48:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29367 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:48:29 -0400 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA29364 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:48:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20000618155004.1995.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:50:04 PDT Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:50:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering 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 --- John Young wrote: > Rob Warren wrote: > >Kaplan's been fairly unbiased since day one. > > Kaplan has been far from unbiased, based on watching and hearing > him in court insult, berate, cajole and disparage the defense team > from day one. Aside from his temperment in person, which I can't speak to, here are the things that Kaplan has done that I think show bias: 1. Failure to allow the defense more time before the preliminary injunciton 2. Refusing to hear the defense expert witness during the preliminary injunciton teleconference 3. Given 1&2, citing lack of evidence presented when he rejected the RE exception 4. Moving the trial date forward in time in reaction to a defense motion that the plaintiffs were not cooperating with discovery On a positive note, and I think this goes to the point I was making in the other thread, most of these occured at the very beginning and were likely influenced by Kaplan's "The defence is full of crap" first impression, likely inspired by a once-over of dvd-copy.com. It seems like he's starting to loosen up and realize that the defense is not full of crap. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 11:57:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29458 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:57:24 -0400 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 LAA29445 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:56:36 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-30.suba.com [206.69.121.222]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA03669 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:52:44 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:52:15 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bfd93d$2cf2b800$de7945ce@bugbug> 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: <003901bfd925$c416a920$d502fea9@oemcomputer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Doug wrote: > > It would be like printing all your books in invisible ink, and making > > people purchase the magic marker separately. This creates a market for > > your magic markers, and gives you a new monopoly. Sounds as much like a > > violation of anti-trust as I can imagine. People have mentioned cases > > involving Morton Salt and US v. Paramount as precedent for this. > > Which you -can- do, unfortunately. Someone can sell you "crippleware" and > you have to buy a second key to get full access. The difference > here is the > consumer is made to believe they are getting full home use > rights, while the > distributor is actually barring most fair uses in toto under the > legislative > guise of 1201. Isn't this different from DVDs? the above sounds like some kind of "licensing", the customer gets a certain level of functionality from a package, they have options at the time of purchase of any such level they want, higher levels cost more $. Later they can buy into a higher level of functionality ("upgrade" though the functionality was always there, no extra files added). either this, or this is just a fancy type of shareware where you're sort of authorized to own/use from the start because you've already paid a fee. this seems very different from DVDs, where you are buying the movie (the program that plays the movie). Sure, plaintiffs could do the levels of functionality thing legally, but are they? No. What are they going to do, sell the picture functionality, then the sound? Well, I suppose they could, but who'd buy it? sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 12:23:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29731 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:23:54 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29728 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:23:53 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:25:59 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:25:59 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P In-Reply-To: <20000618020710.98313.qmail@hotmail.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 > But I was wondering, It's clear there will be some NonInf. for DeCSS but I > wondered if any one had tought of making a ReCSS to prove NonInf. If > someone would write a app the encodes stuff to CSS and you could use DeCSS > to decode it this would prove it :P We'd have to use a key that the DVD CCA assigned to someone else. In order to "ReCSS", we would have to take a known title key and encrypt the content. This could be a bad thing, depending on how pissed off they get for using a licensed key. Without using a licensed key, the data would not playback. As far as analysizing the algorithm for educational purposes, knowing its structure and how data is decoded serves as a great teaching tool in "what not to do." Having the ability to encode data isn't necassarily needed to accomplish these things. As far as a having a viable "weak" encryption, CSS wouldn't make any sense here either, because the CSS algorithm does not encrypt the entire data stream. It flags which sectors are encrypted, and which aren't. This is done to improve performance on sw only decoders. MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 12:31:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29860 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:31:51 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29857 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:31:51 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:33:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:33:57 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The DIVX (pay-per-failed-venture) analogy In-Reply-To: <394C9F4A.62AA2BC0@mninter.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 I think there is a lot that makes sense here, especially since the head of the MPAA has never heard of the licensing body, DVD-CCA. Remember: There have been prior attempts at the non-profit organization, and they either dissolved, or failed. DVD Consortium, DVD Forum, and now the CCA. The kicker here, is that there is no DVD EULA, as was in the case of DiVX, so consumers do not have any idea what happens in the event of the dissolvement of the CCA. ie, no interuption of service clause. MRP On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: > There are many elements of the DIVX scheme that could shed light on > various elements of this case. I want to focus on one here: the sunset > of the authorizing authority and its relation to the publication of a > work. > > DIVX, the DMCA protection-measure poster child, went belly up June 16, > 1999 (why, that was one year ago almost to the day!) > > Despite the misinformation reported to come directly from CC about DIVX > in its "heyday," most consumers realized that they were entering into a > pay-per-use scheme with severe limits on access. > > Forward-thinking consumers probably also realized that the limits would > also be time-sensitive. Someday, DIVX's number would come up, and access > authorization would be denied or unavailable (barring reverse- > engineering of the server-player authentication mechanism and some > 'generous soul' hosting a computer and 1-800 number in perpetuity. Come > to think of it, this may have been a cheaper solution for CC than buying > everyone off). > > In any case, purchasing a DIVX disk came with the understanding that > someday its contents would be beyond reach, as access could no longer be > authorized. This happened sooner rather than later, but because it > relied on a corporate infrastructure its eventual expiration was > certain. > > A year later the spectre of CSS looms (it didn't seem so bad last year, > did it?). Except this access protection measure has potency DIVX never > had. DVDs have critical mass. Material is being exclusively "published" > on DVD. The studios are *serious* this time. > > Finally, I get to the point: The plaintiffs are asserting that access to > the work is protected by a TPM. They assert that access can be > authorized or unauthorized. Unauthorized access is unlawful per 1201. > > Never mind or access is authorized in an instant > case--think of it in the abstract, along the infinite timeline. > > Who grants authorization? The entity with authority to grant access, the > holder of the copyright (or their designee?). > > When will access be authorized? Access will be authorized only during > such time as the entity with authority exists and is willing to grant > authorization. This is necessarily finite. See DIVX. > > Imagine for some reason (illness, perhaps) I "purchased" The Tin Drum on > DIVX. The Tin Drum is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder's > designee (Circuit City's subsidiary) grants me authorized access. The > next week, DIVX goes does the permanent stock split and no longer exists > to grant me authorization. I cannot access the work. Even if I paid to > have anytime access to the work. Even if there is fair use to be made of > the work. Even when the copyright expires. > > Now, apply the scenario to DVDs. > > Where does the analogy fall apart? Is it because my DVD player is not > calling into the DVDCCA/MPAA/Studio and asking for permission? Is it the > explicit agreement that DIVX had with its customers? > > Remember, there is no sunset clause in the DIVX customer agreement > (http://www.dvdresource.com/contributions/divxagreement.shtml), but it > does disclaim responsibility for "interruptions in service." Presumably > the proxy rights to designate authorization fell back to the studios > when DIVX died. I am sure every day the various studios happily field > authorization requests from abandoned DIVX consumers. > > What can we learn from this? I'm not entirely sure, but I'm comfortable > saying it has to do with the sunset of an authorization body and with > whether or not the material on the disc can be considered published. > > Basically, if there is no way to obtain authorization, should a consumer > be held to 1201? What if there is a way, but it is unpublicized or > results in a blanket denial of authorization? Was the material on a DIVX > disk considered published? Could consumers make fair use of a DIVX-fixed > work? Can they do it today, in the absence of the CC subsidiary granting > authorization? Would trafficking in a DIVX circumvention device violate > 1201? Would using it? What about after the work's copyright has expired? > Who would sue? > > From the other perspective, does a consumer have any recourse when their > DVD player doesn't play new DVDs because the key's been revoked? Can a > consumer be held in violation of 1201 when an authorizing body never > explicitly grants access, just denies it post hoc? Suppose such a caveat > were printed on all DVDs? Why should a consumer of a published work be > required to ask for access authorization at all? > > Does the existence of a TPM mean the work is not published, but behind > large, locked doors? > > And, moving way too far into this line of fantasy, does congress have > the right to give copyright holders such large doors? I suppose this is > another final constitutionalty defense. Can you tell how many ways I > take exception to the DMCA yet? > > How might DIVX analogies benefit the defense? The plaintiffs? > > More questions than answers here, some have been seen before, I suppose. > The DIVX analogy has been mentioned in the list in March (0 followups), > and in passing other times. Maybe the list just doesn't find it > interesting. Well, I've already got all this written, might as well try > it again. Basically, all I see with CSS is DIVX with double the faceless > corporate rigamaroll and a more subtle brand of fascism. > > Oh, and I know that the bigger questions will probably not be legally > answered for years. I'm just musing. Hopefully some of this isn't just > noise, I do think that the analogy to DIVX can be helpful. Any takers? > > Chris > (noisy) > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 13:26:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30390 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:26:22 -0400 Received: from duckman.distro.conectiva (brutus.conectiva.com.br [200.250.58.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30377 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:24:37 -0400 Received: from localhost (riel@localhost) by duckman.distro.conectiva (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA09004 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:24:15 -0300 X-Authentication-Warning: duckman.distro.conectiva: riel owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:24:15 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P 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, 18 Jun 2000, matthew.r.pavlovich.1 wrote: > > But I was wondering, It's clear there will be some NonInf. for DeCSS but I > > wondered if any one had tought of making a ReCSS to prove NonInf. If > > someone would write a app the encodes stuff to CSS and you could use DeCSS > > to decode it this would prove it :P > > We'd have to use a key that the DVD CCA assigned to someone > else. In order to "ReCSS", we would have to take a known title > key and encrypt the content. This could be a bad thing, > depending on how pissed off they get for using a licensed key. > Without using a licensed key, the data would not playback. I don't know much about law, but I wonder in how far one single number would be an enforcable secret... Maybe the CSS licensee signed some agreement on this, but I don't see how that would bar the rest of the world from using that number... > As far as a having a viable "weak" encryption, CSS wouldn't make > any sense here either, because the CSS algorithm does not > encrypt the entire data stream. It flags which sectors are > encrypted, and which aren't. This is done to improve > performance on sw only decoders. Is this another reason why CSS can't be a copy protection scheme? Would it be possible to copy parts of the movie (screenshots?) from only the unencrypted sectors? :) regards, Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 13:39:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30550 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:39:16 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30547 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:39:15 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:41:21 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:41:21 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P 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 Rik- > I don't know much about law, but I wonder in how far one > single number would be an enforcable secret... Maybe the > CSS licensee signed some agreement on this, but I don't > see how that would bar the rest of the world from using > that number... I guess their only argument (albeit weak) is that in order to get a valid key, you would pretty much have to reverese engineer the "secret" > Is this another reason why CSS can't be a copy protection > scheme? Would it be possible to copy parts of the movie > (screenshots?) from only the unencrypted sectors? :) Some feedback I have gotten is that upwards of 70% of the movie is not encrypted, the test I ran fell *far* short of that. Getting a full screen shot would be a huge pain in the ass (as you probably know, but here is further description for the benefit of the list). Either consecutive sectors, or sectors containing the exact data needed to fill in the holes generated by the decoded unencrypted sectors would be needed. I doubt we'd be lucky enough to get a full I frame worth of unencrypted sectors. :) MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 13:45:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30643 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:45:30 -0400 Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (sendmail@mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.3.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30640 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:45:29 -0400 Received: from ntserver.nilles-nilles.com ([169.207.176.194]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.9.1) id MAA28591 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:47:14 -0500 Received: by NTSERVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:49:28 -0500 Message-ID: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B69D@NTSERVER> From: "S. Michael Patton" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:49:27 -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 Sparky wrote: > Doug wrote: > > > It would be like printing all your books in invisible > ink, and making > > > people purchase the magic marker separately. This creates > a market for > > > your magic markers, and gives you a new monopoly. Sounds > as much like a > > > violation of anti-trust as I can imagine. People have > mentioned cases > > > involving Morton Salt and US v. Paramount as precedent for this. > > > > Which you -can- do, unfortunately. Someone can sell you > "crippleware" and > > you have to buy a second key to get full access. The difference > > here is the > > consumer is made to believe they are getting full home use > > rights, while the > > distributor is actually barring most fair uses in toto under the > > legislative > > guise of 1201. > > Isn't this different from DVDs? the above sounds like some kind of > "licensing", the customer gets a certain level of functionality from a > package, they have options at the time of purchase of any > such level they > want, higher levels cost more $. Later they can buy into a > higher level of > functionality ("upgrade" though the functionality was always > there, no extra > files added). either this, or this is just a fancy type of > shareware where > you're sort of authorized to own/use from the start because > you've already > paid a fee. You raise a good point. "Purchase" of a DVD, like most programs "sold" nowadays, may not pass ownership of the actual physical object to you. Many software licenses explicitly state that you do not own the physical media on which the program is recorded. These weasel words permit the seller to deny you the rights that an "owner of a copy" has under copyright law. If you do not "own" the copy, you are only licensed to use it, and the extent of your rights can be found only in the license agreement. The bizzare thing is that everyone else who "rents" us an object always worries about when and where the object will be returned. Cars, carpet cleaners, power tools and the like, all have an intrinsic worth greater than the rental/license fee. Software, because of its low cost to produce, need not be returned. I expect that car companies and others will soon get into the act of "licensing" the embedded software that runs their equipment to prevent such things as reverse engineering and the like. > > this seems very different from DVDs, where you are buying the > movie (the > program that plays the movie). Sure, plaintiffs could do the levels of > functionality thing legally, but are they? No. What are they > going to do, > sell the picture functionality, then the sound? Well, I > suppose they could, > but who'd buy it? See above. DVD's may only give you the right to see it and the right to hear it. Check the license out. > > sparky > > > Mike Patton From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 13:45:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30652 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:45:47 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30649 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:45:45 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06550 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.34.25] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:51:24 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Sun, 18 Jun 00 13:51:24 -0500 Message-ID: <001301bfd94d$5043e800$a218fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:47:40 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This might also be patent infringement, but IANAL. This seems like a bad idea. ----- Original Message ----- From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" To: Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P > > But I was wondering, It's clear there will be some NonInf. for DeCSS but I > > wondered if any one had tought of making a ReCSS to prove NonInf. If > > someone would write a app the encodes stuff to CSS and you could use DeCSS > > to decode it this would prove it :P > > We'd have to use a key that the DVD CCA assigned to someone else. In > order to "ReCSS", we would have to take a known title key and encrypt the > content. This could be a bad thing, depending on how pissed off they get > for using a licensed key. Without using a licensed key, the data would > not playback. > > As far as analysizing the algorithm for educational purposes, knowing its > structure and how data is decoded serves as a great teaching tool in "what > not to do." Having the ability to encode data isn't necassarily needed to > accomplish these things. > > As far as a having a viable "weak" encryption, CSS wouldn't make any sense > here either, because the CSS algorithm does not encrypt the entire data > stream. It flags which sectors are encrypted, and which aren't. This is > done to improve performance on sw only decoders. > > MRP > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 14:00:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA30917 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:00:51 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA30914 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:00:50 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:02:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:02:56 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P In-Reply-To: <001301bfd94d$5043e800$a218fea9@oemcomputer> 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 CSS algorithm isn't patented. If it was, there would be a detailed description of it in the patent offfice, that is why they had to classify it as "trade secret" MRP On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Doug Hudson wrote: > This might also be patent infringement, but IANAL. This seems like a bad > idea. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 12:25 PM > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P > > > > > But I was wondering, It's clear there will be some NonInf. for DeCSS but > I > > > wondered if any one had tought of making a ReCSS to prove NonInf. If > > > someone would write a app the encodes stuff to CSS and you could use > DeCSS > > > to decode it this would prove it :P > > > > We'd have to use a key that the DVD CCA assigned to someone else. In > > order to "ReCSS", we would have to take a known title key and encrypt the > > content. This could be a bad thing, depending on how pissed off they get > > for using a licensed key. Without using a licensed key, the data would > > not playback. > > > > As far as analysizing the algorithm for educational purposes, knowing its > > structure and how data is decoded serves as a great teaching tool in "what > > not to do." Having the ability to encode data isn't necassarily needed to > > accomplish these things. > > > > As far as a having a viable "weak" encryption, CSS wouldn't make any sense > > here either, because the CSS algorithm does not encrypt the entire data > > stream. It flags which sectors are encrypted, and which aren't. This is > > done to improve performance on sw only decoders. > > > > MRP > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 15:52:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA31671 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:52:58 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA31668 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:52:55 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16622 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:54:45 -0500 Message-ID: <394D273D.9C19D127@mninter.net> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:47:09 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA References: <20000618155004.1995.qmail@web511.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 Interestingly I thought Kaplan was implying that the plaintiffs were full of crap. It seems so obvious to me, and, I think any impartial party to this trial would get the sense that at least one party was full of crap, given they way it has been argued. It's a requirement, from where I sit. > On a positive note, and I think this goes to the point I was making in > the other thread, most of these occured at the very beginning and were > likely influenced by Kaplan's "The defence is full of crap" first > impression, likely inspired by a once-over of dvd-copy.com. It seems > like he's starting to loosen up and realize that the defense is not > full of crap. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 17:08:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA32546 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:08:53 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA32543 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:08:52 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FWD00G35C5EYQ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:48:28 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P In-reply-to: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FWD00G37C5EYQ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20000618020710.98313.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > But I was wondering, It's clear there will be some NonInf. for DeCSS but I > > wondered if any one had tought of making a ReCSS to prove NonInf. If > > someone would write a app the encodes stuff to CSS and you could use DeCSS > > to decode it this would prove it :P > > We'd have to use a key that the DVD CCA assigned to someone else. In > order to "ReCSS", we would have to take a known title key and encrypt the > content. This could be a bad thing, depending on how pissed off they get > for using a licensed key. Without using a licensed key, the data would > not playback. Well, as a side effect of the complete blowing of the CSS encryption scheme, it should be possible to generate title keys at will. (Now *that* would piss them off even more. :o) ) > As far as analyzing the algorithm for educational purposes, knowing its > structure and how data is decoded serves as a great teaching tool in "what > not to do." Having the ability to encode data isn't necassarily needed to > accomplish these things. Well, the professors need to make the data for the homework exercises. :o) -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 17:14:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA32684 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:14:16 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA32680 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:14:15 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 133mQW-0003mX-00; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:16:20 -0700 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:16:20 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The DIVX (pay-per-failed-venture) analogy Message-ID: <20000618141620.A15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <394C9F4A.62AA2BC0@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from mpav@purdue.edu on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 11:33:57AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu matthew.r.pavlovich.1 writes: > I think there is a lot that makes sense here, especially since the head of > the MPAA has never heard of the licensing body, DVD-CCA. > > Remember: There have been prior attempts at the non-profit organization, > and they either dissolved, or failed. DVD Consortium, DVD Forum, and now > the CCA. The DVD Forum still exists. They claim that they are simply a more-open successor to the DVD Consortium, which was made up of a limited set of "founder companies". http://www.dvdforum.org/ There was a predecessor organization ("predecessor-in-interest") to the DVD CCA by the name of CSS ILO (Interim Licensing Organization), created (and funded, I think) by Matsushita. The CCA was referred to as the "CSS Entity" in contracts at that point. As John Young and I were noting once, the CCA doesn't care to talk much about the ILO at the moment. (Nobody has yet claimed that the ILO itself was a non-profit, as opposed to an office of for-profit Matsushita. So the non-profit CCA may have inherited many of its contracts from a for-profit predecessor. John J. Hoy went directly from a position at Toshiba, the other CSS creator, where he was working on CSS licensing, to become President of the newly-opened DVD CCA. This we learn from his Reply Declaration.) Is there anything else that dissolved or failed? -- 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 Jun 18 18:35:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00673 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:35:18 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00670 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:35:18 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:40:58 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DC6@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:40:57 -0400 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 This takes us far afield into the murky world of contracts; and is certainly a legal quagmire nearly the size of copyright. There is no contract in the purchase of the DVD(*); there is no license agreement on the DVD, there is no "seal" to break, no licensed shrink-wrap to open. As a consumer, I have a common understanding of copyright law that tells me what purchase of a movie (VHS or DVD) means. In particular, I know that I am not legally allowed to make a copy of it, or exhibit it in a public setting. Fair use? I think that if I had a web page I could put a 1-2 min clip of the movie on it to illustrate part of a larger statement. But I could not say "Wow! Look at how well Dustin Hoffman did in 'The Graduate'" and put the whole film out there. Okay, so if the DVD manufacturers started including a license agreement with their products, could they legitimately claim their product is "licensed, not sold"? The answer is probably yes, but -- it would be very difficult for the owners to enforce many rights beyond what copyright already allows. As an outrageous example, what if the license agreement said that blondes are not allowed to view the DVD? I would be extremely surprised if it could be legally enforced, even though I have never heard of any law that would specifically prevent this. Now, as a less outrageous example, what if the license agreement says you agree to only view the DVD on a properly licensed player? I have a depressing thought that may be the outcome of this case. It may be in the long run that the interest of movie studios in the wide distribution of DVD movies will make such a clause counterproductive. (*) Other than the contract of the purchase itself. -----Original Message----- From: S. Michael Patton [mailto:mpatton@nilles-nilles.com] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 1:49 PM To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match You raise a good point. "Purchase" of a DVD, like most programs "sold" nowadays, may not pass ownership of the actual physical object to you. Many software licenses explicitly state that you do not own the physical media on which the program is recorded. These weasel words permit the seller to deny you the rights that an "owner of a copy" has under copyright law. If you do not "own" the copy, you are only licensed to use it, and the extent of your rights can be found only in the license agreement. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 18:38:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00803 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:38:00 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00800 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:38:00 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15101 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:50:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.34.12] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:43:39 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Sun, 18 Jun 00 18:43:39 -0500 Message-ID: <006101bfd976$22bc5740$a218fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:39:47 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > CSS algorithm isn't patented. If it was, there would be a detailed > description of it in the patent offfice, that is why they had to classify > it as "trade secret" Go to www.patents.ibm.com, and search for Content Scrambling System, CSS, and DVD. Its amazing what you can get in a patent with a description detailed enough for a patent but otherwise utterly useless. For example, take a look at US Pat No. 6,009,171, entitled "Apparatus, method and computer program product for protecting copyright data within a computer system." http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn=US06009171 Here's the abstract Apparatus, method and computer program product are provided for digitally processing an encrypted data stream scrambled, for example, according to content scrambling system (CSS) technology. This digital processing insures against communication of clear data within the computer system from a central processing unit (CPU) to any accessible structure, such as memory or a system bus. Descrambling of the (CSS) scrambled data stream occurs within a module executing on the CPU, which is followed by re-encryption of the data prior to transfer from the CPU. By so processing the data, integrity of copyrighted material is maintained, while allowing for software descrambling of the CSS encrypted data stream. Various techniques for establishing the encryption/decryption algorithm pair employed are described. Decryption of the re-encrypted data can occur at a receiving software module and/or a receiving hardware device, such as a decoder. And this is one of the *older* patents on CSS. -doug From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 18:55:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00888 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:55:37 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00885 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:55:36 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:01:20 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DC7@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] CSS business practices (was ReCSS) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:01:19 -0400 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 This whole thread brings up some interesting questions about the business practices in regards to CSS. Are there any restrictions regarding CSS for distributors of DVDs? For stores that sell DVDs? [1] If I decide to produce a movie, and I want to distribute it with CSS, do I have to pay for a title key? Or is CSS simply unavailable unless I sign up with one of the big studios? In fact, how the heck DO I get my movie mastered with CSS? Are there only certain companies licensed to product such a thing? In what form do I give them the master media? Suppose I am one of the major motion picture studios, and I contract for a movie, and the producer emphatically does not want the DVD distribution to be CSS protected? Could a producer negotiate such a contract, or might that run afoul of other agreements between studios? If yes, which ones? It strikes me that as we throw around anti-trust arguments and tying, combined with the mandatory player licensing, this line of questioning could bear fruit. [1] Personal anecdote from the software world: certain international software distributors will not sell your product unless you can demonstrate to them that you have certain TPMs in place. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 19:02:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01071 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:02:23 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA01068 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:02:22 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 133o79-0003vQ-00; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:04:27 -0700 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:04:27 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P Message-ID: <20000618160427.D15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <006101bfd976$22bc5740$a218fea9@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <006101bfd976$22bc5740$a218fea9@oemcomputer>; from dhudson@law.gwu.edu on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:39:47PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Doug Hudson writes: > http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn=US06009171 > > Here's the abstract > > Apparatus, method and computer program product are provided for digitally > processing an encrypted data stream scrambled, for example, according to > content scrambling system (CSS) technology. This digital processing insures > against communication of clear data within the computer system from a > central processing unit (CPU) to any accessible structure, such as memory or > a system bus. Descrambling of the (CSS) scrambled data stream occurs within > a module executing on the CPU, which is followed by re-encryption of the > data prior to transfer from the CPU. By so processing the data, integrity of > copyrighted material is maintained, while allowing for software descrambling > of the CSS encrypted data stream. Various techniques for establishing the > encryption/decryption algorithm pair employed are described. Decryption of > the re-encrypted data can occur at a receiving software module and/or a > receiving hardware device, such as a decoder. But as elsewhere, a use of the same algorithms _outside_ of copy protection applications might not be covered because it might not even be claimed. As I mentioned before, DeCSS, for instance, definitely doesn't "insure[] against communication of clear data within the computer system from a central processing unit (CPU) to any accessible structure, such as memory or a system bus"; it also doesn't "follow[] by re-encryption of the data prior to transfer from the CPU". Humorously enough, that technique - wasn't used in actual software players (because there are rippers that can extract the clear data outside of the CPU) - can't be used to make a secure software player anyway (because the CPU can be emulated in software so that it no longer constitutes a secure perimeter for decryption operations) But I don't think offhand that this patent will apply to circumvention tools. The interesting question is whether they went the Macrovision route and specifically patented the use of these algorithms for circumvention. :-) That could be a big threat to (e.g.) fair use in the future. Someone invents a TPM, even if 1201 is entirely thrown out as unconstitutional, and then patents the TPM and includes a claim which applies to _any_ decryption. Then if you decrypt the content in the U.S., if the patent is valid, you will be subject to the terms of the patent license for the TPM. :-( New security concept: patent an encryption algorithm, like IDEA. Don't license the patent to anybody outside of your organization. Communicate using a system based on that algorithm; if someone breaks it and reads your communications, sue for patent infringement. Litigators rather than alligators, indeed. -- 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 Jun 18 19:12:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01228 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:12:45 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA01225 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:12:44 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FWD00F0THW36D@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:14:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:52:47 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P In-reply-to: <006101bfd976$22bc5740$a218fea9@oemcomputer> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FWD00F0UHW36D@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 > For example, take a look at US Pat No. 6,009,171, entitled "Apparatus, > method and computer program product for protecting copyright data within a > computer system." > > http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn=US06009171 > > Here's the abstract > > [...] > > And this is one of the *older* patents on CSS. Except that if I read it correctly, this patent was *DENIED*. If you take a look at the Feb 29, 2000 entry at: http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn=US06009171__&show_legal=1#LEGAL It says that no patent was granted. (Compare to: http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn=US05883640__&show_legal=1#LEGAL ). -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 19:14:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01357 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:14:37 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA01354 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:14:37 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:16:43 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:16:43 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS business practices (was ReCSS) In-Reply-To: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DC7@c100.clearway.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 You would have to get a license for a title key, or sign up with a major studio to produce the DVDs (in which case they already have access to keys). I do not know of any independant movie maker that produced DVDs w/ a CSS and not signed on with a big studio, it seems like something that most independants wouldn't want to deal with. Just pay 'the man' and they are set. There are content creation suites available for making DVD data (ie home moives, etc), but those won't be encrypted. MRP On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Leland Ray wrote: > > This whole thread brings up some interesting questions about the > business practices in regards to CSS. > > > Are there any restrictions regarding CSS for distributors of > DVDs? For stores that sell DVDs? [1] > > If I decide to produce a movie, and I want to distribute it with CSS, > do I have to pay for a title key? Or is CSS simply unavailable unless > I sign up with one of the big studios? > > In fact, how the heck DO I get my movie mastered with CSS? Are there > only certain companies licensed to product such a thing? In what form > do I give them the master media? > > Suppose I am one of the major motion picture studios, and I contract > for a movie, and the producer emphatically does not want the DVD > distribution to be CSS protected? Could a producer negotiate such a > contract, or might that run afoul of other agreements between > studios? If yes, which ones? > > > It strikes me that as we throw around anti-trust arguments and tying, > combined with the mandatory player licensing, this line of questioning > could bear fruit. > > [1] Personal anecdote from the software world: certain international > software distributors will not sell your product unless you can > demonstrate to them that you have certain TPMs in place. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 19:15:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01393 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:15:17 -0400 Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA01390 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:15:17 -0400 Received: from mail.law.gwu.edu (mail.law.gwu.edu [128.164.161.6]) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23746 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:27:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer [64.38.34.12] (dhudson@law.gwu.edu); Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:20:53 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mail.law.gwu.edu; Sun, 18 Jun 00 19:20:53 -0500 Message-ID: <008201bfd97b$56217020$a218fea9@oemcomputer> From: "Doug Hudson" To: References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DC7@c100.clearway.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS business practices (was ReCSS) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:17:06 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Take a look at the dvdcca web page. Depending on whether you are a content provider, hardware maker, etc., you have to go through a 5 to 7 step process to apply for access to the "highly" confidental CSS information; you also have to (in most cases) prove you have paid the tens of thousands of dollars for a DVD forum license on DVD technologies. Look at dvdcca.org, dvdform.org for details. I especially like the dvdcca.org faq on CSS. It claims there is a linux dvd player from a particular designer when that designer does not appear to even be developing one (anyone know differently?) Its also got the regular MPAA drivel on DeCSS. > Are there any restrictions regarding CSS for distributors of > DVDs? For stores that sell DVDs? [1] > > If I decide to produce a movie, and I want to distribute it with CSS, > do I have to pay for a title key? Or is CSS simply unavailable unless > I sign up with one of the big studios? > > In fact, how the heck DO I get my movie mastered with CSS? Are there > only certain companies licensed to product such a thing? In what form > do I give them the master media? > > Suppose I am one of the major motion picture studios, and I contract > for a movie, and the producer emphatically does not want the DVD > distribution to be CSS protected? Could a producer negotiate such a > contract, or might that run afoul of other agreements between > studios? If yes, which ones? > > > It strikes me that as we throw around anti-trust arguments and tying, > combined with the mandatory player licensing, this line of questioning > could bear fruit. > > [1] Personal anecdote from the software world: certain international > software distributors will not sell your product unless you can > demonstrate to them that you have certain TPMs in place. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 19:22:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01505 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:22:46 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA01502 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:22:46 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:24:52 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:24:52 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS business practices (was ReCSS) In-Reply-To: <008201bfd97b$56217020$a218fea9@oemcomputer> 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 especially like the dvdcca.org faq on CSS. It claims there is a linux dvd > player from a particular designer when that designer does not appear to even > be developing one (anyone know differently?) Its also got the regular MPAA > drivel on DeCSS. There are (2) commercial (CSS licensed) DVD players "in the works" At this point they are both vapor ware. There is Intervideo's LinDVD, whcih they don't even have the press release for on their website, and LSDVD's, which is being developed a little more secretly. Remember: the issue isn't solely to have a player on linux, it is to reverse engineer a technology to provide interoperablity on a different system that was not previously supported. The Samba project is another claer example. They are reverse engineering a file sharing/print/authentication protocal that was scarcely documented and limited to systems powered by the OS of a copmany that is facing breakup due to monopolistic practices. MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 19:29:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01639 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:29:19 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA01636 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:29:17 -0400 Received: (qmail 5382 invoked by uid 502); 18 Jun 2000 23:34:09 -0000 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:34:08 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA Message-ID: <20000618193408.E23755@linuxpower.org> References: <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617221612.D23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180854.EAA32154@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200006180854.EAA32154@granger.mail.mindspring.net>; from John Young on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 04:52:55AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 04:52:55AM -0400, John Young wrote: > Kaplan is hungrier for publicity than the scorpions in a bottle. > He's using the case for his purposes. Nothing unusual about > judge's doing that, they're never as objective as their spin > pretends, from the Supremes down to the justices of the > peace. That's nice. It doesn't answer my question, though. You've suggested that what is going on in the courtroom is not what we're seeing in transcript. You're, at the very least, insinuating that there might be an intentional deception going on. Are you claiming that Kaplan is intentionally falsifying court transcripts? If this is in fact going on, people need to know about it. That's not a minor offense. > Sit in on a few agonzingly boring federal cases and you'll > see why being a federal judge is one of the worst and best > jobs in the world. You can see brains rotting. Hell, courthouse > security is more interesting than the drone that's being pretentiously > protected. Yeah, and federal courthouses are way too luxurious, > SDNY's are a scandal -- which got the administrative judge a lot > of face time, negative better than none at all his club buddies > laughed. > > What annoys me are the calls for proper behavior among > defendants and supporters to avoid offending the judge. Who said anything about offending the judge? I sure didn't. But there's a difference between speaking the truth in the face of offense and slander. > Judges can take care of themselves, as Kaplan said of the > prominents, and meaning himself. I say offend the judge, > he thrives on being a scorpion. Yes, the record fails to > show that, but that's the well-known fault of records: they > are not truthful, they merely present an illusion of truth, > and what they leave out in the name of objectivity is what > all the screaming is about. Printed text is a slice of reality, > very thin. Voice is another. Same with video, audio tapes. > So, yeah, come to the hearings, see about 50% of reality, > the rest is confidential, privileged, decided in clubhouses. > > Attack Kaplan in public, please your honor and his. He > craves anecdotal material for his bio, in competition with > his peers. You seem to be very good at shouting your opinions. You do the emotional rant thing exceptionally. Now let's pretend that we're all mature adults here. How much of this "Kaplan is Hitler" speech do you actually have any shred of evidence for? Witnesses, for example? Or is it being invented from whole cloth to play the crowd? -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 19:36:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01751 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:36:11 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA01748 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:36:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 5418 invoked by uid 502); 18 Jun 2000 23:41:04 -0000 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:41:04 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA Message-ID: <20000618194104.F23755@linuxpower.org> References: <20000618155004.1995.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000618155004.1995.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com>; from Bryan Taylor on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 08:50:04AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 08:50:04AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- John Young wrote: > > Rob Warren wrote: > > >Kaplan's been fairly unbiased since day one. > > > > Kaplan has been far from unbiased, based on watching and hearing > > him in court insult, berate, cajole and disparage the defense team > > from day one. > > Aside from his temperment in person, which I can't speak to, here are > the things that Kaplan has done that I think show bias: > > 1. Failure to allow the defense more time before the preliminary > injunciton > 2. Refusing to hear the defense expert witness during the preliminary > injunciton teleconference > 3. Given 1&2, citing lack of evidence presented when he rejected the RE > exception > 4. Moving the trial date forward in time in reaction to a defense > motion that the plaintiffs were not cooperating with discovery > > On a positive note, and I think this goes to the point I was making in > the other thread, most of these occured at the very beginning and were > likely influenced by Kaplan's "The defence is full of crap" first > impression, likely inspired by a once-over of dvd-copy.com. It seems > like he's starting to loosen up and realize that the defense is not > full of crap. I agree completely. This is why I can't stand this "Kaplan is Hitler" demonization.. it's wishful thinking. It's inspired by not wanting to admit that our case - and our presentation - has liabilities. Come on, guys. By most reports about this guy, he's not of the "big business is always right" variety.. several legal folks have pointed out over the months that Kaplan has had a record of siding with the "little guy". At the same time, the transcripts indicate that this guy is not stupid; he just doesn't tolerate bullshit in his courtroom. I don't blame him. Defense made a lot of mistakes early on, which nearly sunk us. We did as much to screw up our own case as the plaintiffs; the injunction hearing transcript demonstrates that fairly clearly. Most likely Kaplan didn't come in with an a priori judgement (otherwise known as being "prejudiced"), but quickly formed one as the defense vainly grasped for straws trying to fight the "piracy" angle. Enough with the Kaplan-bashing. Not agreeing with us does not equate to being evil. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 19:37:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01799 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:37:42 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA01796 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:37:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 5428 invoked by uid 502); 18 Jun 2000 23:42:34 -0000 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:42:34 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA Message-ID: <20000618194234.G23755@linuxpower.org> References: <20000618155004.1995.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> <394D273D.9C19D127@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <394D273D.9C19D127@mninter.net>; from Chris Moseng on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:47:09PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:47:09PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > Interestingly I thought Kaplan was implying that the plaintiffs were > full of crap. It seems so obvious to me, and, I think any impartial > party to this trial would get the sense that at least one party was full > of crap, given they way it has been argued. It's a requirement, from > where I sit. Early on, Kaplan definitely did not think highly of the defense. It's taken this long for defense to get it's act together. The fact that the plaintiffs have chronically screwed up in several key places hasn't hurt us. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 19:40:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01853 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:40:39 -0400 Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (sendmail@mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.3.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA01850 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:40:39 -0400 Received: from ntserver.nilles-nilles.com ([169.207.176.194]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.9.1) id SAA20536 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:42:43 -0500 Received: by NTSERVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:45:01 -0500 Message-ID: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B69F@NTSERVER> From: "S. Michael Patton" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:45:00 -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 If what you say is true, then by buying a DVD you would have any of the rights of an owner of a copy. This may be where authorization comes from. In patent law, one cannot sell a patented machine, then require the purchaser to pay for a license under the patent. The courts decided long ago that when you sell your patented machine (and assuming it cannot be used except in an infringing manner) an implied license to use the machine under any patents that you hold goes along with the sale. Similarly, if you sell a small lot of land in the middle of your field, the purchaser receives the right to travel across your land to get to that lot. Perhaps this is fertile ground (no pun intended) for legal analogy, or at least for properly understanding the scope of "authorization" as used in the statute. > -----Original Message----- > From: Leland Ray [mailto:Ray@clearway.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 5:41 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match > > > > This takes us far afield into the murky world of contracts; and is > certainly a legal quagmire nearly the size of copyright. > > There is no contract in the purchase of the DVD(*); there is > no license > agreement on the DVD, there is no "seal" to break, no > licensed shrink-wrap > to open. > > As a consumer, I have a common understanding of copyright law > that tells > me what purchase of a movie (VHS or DVD) means. In particular, I know > that I am not legally allowed to make a copy of it, or exhibit it in > a public setting. Fair use? I think that if I had a web page > I could put > a 1-2 min clip of the movie on it to illustrate part of a > larger statement. > But I could not say "Wow! Look at how well Dustin Hoffman did in > 'The Graduate'" and put the whole film out there. > > Okay, so if the DVD manufacturers started including a license > agreement > with their products, could they legitimately claim their product is > "licensed, not sold"? > > The answer is probably yes, but -- it would be very difficult for the > owners to enforce many rights beyond what copyright already allows. > > As an outrageous example, what if the license agreement said > that blondes > are not allowed to view the DVD? I would be extremely surprised if it > could be legally enforced, even though I have never heard of any law > that would specifically prevent this. > > Now, as a less outrageous example, what if the license agreement says > you agree to only view the DVD on a properly licensed player? I have > a depressing thought that may be the outcome of this case. It may be > in the long run that the interest of movie studios in the wide > distribution of DVD movies will make such a clause > counterproductive. > > > (*) Other than the contract of the purchase itself. > > -----Original Message----- > From: S. Michael Patton [mailto:mpatton@nilles-nilles.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 1:49 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match > > You raise a good point. "Purchase" of a DVD, like most > programs "sold" > nowadays, may not pass ownership of the actual physical > object to you. Many > software licenses explicitly state that you do not own the > physical media on > which the program is recorded. These weasel words permit the > seller to deny > you the rights that an "owner of a copy" has under copyright > law. If you do > not "own" the copy, you are only licensed to use it, and the > extent of your > rights can be found only in the license agreement. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 19:52:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02019 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:52:32 -0400 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 TAA02016 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:52:31 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl102.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.102]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA06173 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394D5FEA.81906CB5@cdpage.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:48:59 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS business practices (was ReCSS) References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DC7@c100.clearway.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 Leland Ray wrote: > This whole thread brings up some interesting questions about the > business practices in regards to CSS. > > Are there any restrictions regarding CSS for distributors of > DVDs? For stores that sell DVDs? [1] > > If I decide to produce a movie, and I want to distribute it with CSS, > do I have to pay for a title key? Or is CSS simply unavailable unless > I sign up with one of the big studios? > > In fact, how the heck DO I get my movie mastered with CSS? Are there > only certain companies licensed to product such a thing? In what form > do I give them the master media? Replicators have CSS licenses. The CSS encryption, such as it is, is added when your title is mastered to glass prior to replication on polycarbonate. You can give them DLT ot in some cases, DVD-R. with the DVD disc image on it (minus CSS). > Suppose I am one of the major motion picture studios, and I contract > for a movie, and the producer emphatically does not want the DVD > distribution to be CSS protected? Could a producer negotiate such a > contract, or might that run afoul of other agreements between > studios? If yes, which ones? It's completely up to the copyright owner whether CSS is to be added or not. > > > It strikes me that as we throw around anti-trust arguments and tying, > combined with the mandatory player licensing, this line of questioning > could bear fruit. > > [1] Personal anecdote from the software world: certain international > software distributors will not sell your product unless you can > demonstrate to them that you have certain TPMs in place. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 19:54:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02110 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:54:41 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA02107 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:54:40 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA29972 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:56:34 -0500 Message-ID: <394D5F40.65CEC5BF@mninter.net> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:46:08 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA References: <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617221612.D23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180854.EAA32154@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000618193408.E23755@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 > Attack Kaplan in public, please your honor and his. He > craves anecdotal material for his bio, in competition with > his peers. Put briefly, this is exactly what the MPAA would like us to do. Go ahead, supporters of the first amendment, attack the judge personally and professionally! We all saw how well that operates in our benefit when MPAA employees got flamed by non-parties who can't temper their justified anger with reason or enlightening rhetoric ("I will also kill your attorneys and judges who think piracy is bad. Also, I hope to kill at least one thousand of you!"). Parties who actually intend to assist in the defense cannot participate in such inflammatory nonsense, because their credibility is abandoned. Should the defendants have reason to believe they were not afforded due process, they will appeal. I would appreciate not being associated with such a radical position while I'm attempting to assist the defense. I value my credibility and rhetorical position to convince the judge. Thanks. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 20:10:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02260 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:10:21 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA02257 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:10:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 5634 invoked by uid 502); 19 Jun 2000 00:15:13 -0000 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:15:13 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA Message-ID: <20000618201513.I23755@linuxpower.org> References: <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617221612.D23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180854.EAA32154@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000618193408.E23755@linuxpower.org> <394D5F40.65CEC5BF@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <394D5F40.65CEC5BF@mninter.net>; from Chris Moseng on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:46:08PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:46:08PM -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: > > Attack Kaplan in public, please your honor and his. He > > craves anecdotal material for his bio, in competition with > > his peers. > > Put briefly, this is exactly what the MPAA would like us to do. > > Go ahead, supporters of the first amendment, attack the judge personally > and professionally! > > We all saw how well that operates in our benefit when MPAA employees got > flamed by non-parties who can't temper their justified anger with reason > or enlightening rhetoric ("I will also kill your attorneys and judges > who think piracy is bad. Also, I hope to kill at least one thousand of > you!"). > > Parties who actually intend to assist in the defense cannot participate > in such inflammatory nonsense, because their credibility is abandoned. > > Should the defendants have reason to believe they were not afforded due > process, they will appeal. > > I would appreciate not being associated with such a radical position > while I'm attempting to assist the defense. I value my credibility and > rhetorical position to convince the judge. AMEN. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 20:25:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02436 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:25:25 -0400 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02433 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:25:24 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2inige0.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.65.192]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA13760 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006190027.UAA13760@blount.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:23:31 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA In-Reply-To: <20000618193408.E23755@linuxpower.org> References: <200006180854.EAA32154@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617221612.D23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180854.EAA32154@granger.mail.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 No, Kaplan is not falsifying hearing transcripts, well, maybe only a tad. The transcripts don't convey what's going on in the courtroom. They just present the words as text, not the physical behavior, the ridicule, the sarcasm. But that's a well-known shortcoming of transcripts, as well as text and law books. Courtroom argument is far more than that, and so are judges' demeanor. Kaplan had a prepared statement ready before the first hearing in January. He started reading it after a 10 minute break. Read for 20 minutes a statement that could not have been based on the hearing for it would have taken longer than that to write it. He did not extemporize. That statement went into the transcript, though, as if it responded to what happened in the hearing. In contrast, at the June 6 hearing, he began to deliver his decision shortly after completion of argument, not by reading it but by weaving his thoughts into what was argued. That was a better and more convincing display than reading a prepared statement, and did not have the over-polished character of the first hearing statement. I repeat: nobody from the defense was unruly in the January hearing. However, Kaplan clearly relished repeating Reimerdes Website quote about "cocksuckers." That's in the transcript, two of the instances, a third got cropped. Evincing a pretentious dickhead's smarm, he even rolled his eyes at the audience. Oh yeah, Kaplan rants but it gets printed as an order. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 18 23:45:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA22519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:45:02 -0400 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA22516 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:45:01 -0400 Message-ID: <20000619034638.7151.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:46:38 PDT Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:46:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match 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 --- "S. Michael Patton" wrote: > You raise a good point. "Purchase" of a DVD, like most programs > "sold" nowadays, may not pass ownership of the actual physical > object to you. Many software licenses explicitly state that you > do not own the physical media on which the program is recorded. > These weasel words permit the seller to deny you the rights that > an "owner of a copy" has under copyright law. If > you do not "own" the copy, you are only licensed to use it, and > the extent of your rights can be found only in the license > agreement. The idea of getting out of first sale by calling it a licence is hardly new. This arguement was tried several times at the turn of the century. I have no idea why exactly it has resurfaced from the junk pile, where it belongs, but I think the Supreme Court nailed it: "[T]o call the sale a license to use is a mere play upon words." Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 (1913) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=229&page=1 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 02:29:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA23556 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 02:29:55 -0400 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 CAA23553 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 02:29:53 -0400 Received: from travel-net.com (trj20.travel-net.com [207.176.160.20]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA00839 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 02:32:16 -0400 Message-ID: <394DBE5A.5CAD8042@travel-net.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 02:31:54 -0400 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering MPAA References: <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617221612.D23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180854.EAA32154@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000618193408.E23755@linuxpower.org> <394D5F40.65CEC5BF@mninter.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 I'm definitely with Chris on this one. But I would also request that no matter how listmembers feel about this topic, they refrain from carrying on this thread or perhaps start a separate list. Even continuing to discuss whether we should trash the judge or not is the wrong thing to do, IMHO. And now, back to my reading of the last 70 messages in reverse chronological order.... Chris Moseng wrote: > > > Attack Kaplan in public, please your honor and his. He > > craves anecdotal material for his bio, in competition with > > his peers. > > Put briefly, this is exactly what the MPAA would like us to do. > > Go ahead, supporters of the first amendment, attack the judge personally > and professionally! > > We all saw how well that operates in our benefit when MPAA employees got > flamed by non-parties who can't temper their justified anger with reason > or enlightening rhetoric ("I will also kill your attorneys and judges > who think piracy is bad. Also, I hope to kill at least one thousand of > you!"). > > Parties who actually intend to assist in the defense cannot participate > in such inflammatory nonsense, because their credibility is abandoned. > > Should the defendants have reason to believe they were not afforded due > process, they will appeal. > > I would appreciate not being associated with such a radical position > while I'm attempting to assist the defense. I value my credibility and > rhetorical position to convince the judge. > > Thanks. > > Chris -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 03:48:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA24255 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:48:33 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA24252 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:48:31 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5J7oaL02709 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:50:37 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:50:35 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl In-Reply-To: <3949DD51.63AAAA0F@mninter.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, 16 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: >> The DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) is a not-for-profit >> corporation... > >Where do the licensing fees go, then? Charity? Legal fees? >If, as they say, no copy protection system is unbreakable, why is DeCSS >hindering the release of new digital products? Because this eventuality >is no surprise, it should have no bearing on the release of new DVD >technology. DeCSS is a red herring. Of course they're testing their newest toy. DeCSS is just fodder for the process. If 1201 holds, they can start putting out whatever audio under whatever protection without worrying about not being able to sue. I must wonder what makes people cynical enough to delay perfectly acceptable income and tons of favorable PR simply to make economically insignificant sorts of copying marginally more difficult? Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 04:59:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA25278 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:59:03 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA25275 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:59:01 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5J917u14651 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:01:07 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:01:06 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? 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 Fri, 16 Jun 2000, sparky wrote: >I just read that FAT32 doesn't support files larger than 4 gig. > >is this *true*? I think it might be. Until recently M$ products couldn't handle /partitions/ larger than 2GiB. In fact, and somebody more knowledgeable should verify this, I don't think the current default builds of Ext2 go over 2GiB. If both Linux and Windows have trouble with big files, it makes the claims of an imminent threat to copyright owners rather ... amusing? Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 05:04:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA25471 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:04:24 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA25468 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:04:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5J96Tl15602 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:06:29 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:06:29 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new avenue 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 Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Joshua Stratton wrote: >Even if we have something that looks very promising, we should continue to >look for even more strategies to use - until we win, let's throw >everything we've got at the MPAA. And let's not forget that there will be appeal upon appeal if the MPAA folks lose. Plus there is the issue of 1201 standing even if they do. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 08:07:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA26287 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:07:03 -0400 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 IAA26284 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:06:59 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1340MU-0003xw-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:09:06 +0200 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:09:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? 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, 19 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > I think it might be. Until recently M$ products couldn't handle /partitions/ > larger than 2GiB. In fact, and somebody more knowledgeable should verify > this, I don't think the current default builds of Ext2 go over 2GiB. If > both Linux and Windows have trouble with big files, it makes the claims of > an imminent threat to copyright owners rather ... amusing? I think the .vob files are split into several files on a DVD as a workaround for filesystem ( UDF? ) size limitations. Splitting files solves lots of problems, but doesn't make download any faster. 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 Jun 19 08:45:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA26584 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:45:04 -0400 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 IAA26581 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:45:02 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl102.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.102]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA21483 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394E1503.844DE284@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:41:40 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? 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: > I think the .vob files are split into several files on a DVD as a > workaround for filesystem ( UDF? ) size limitations. Splitting files > solves lots of problems, but doesn't make download any faster. > > The DVD Video spec limits .vob files to ~one gigabyte. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 09:29:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA27053 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:29:42 -0400 Received: from ns.fgks.com ([208.130.17.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA27050 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:29:40 -0400 Received: from FGKSGW (fgksgw.fgks.com [172.16.1.3]) by ns.fgks.com (2.5 Build 2639 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP id JAA05763 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:34:04 +0100 Received: from FGDOM-Message_Server by FGKSGW with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:27:26 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:27:00 -0400 From: "Edward Hernstadt" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id JAA27051 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu By the way, that should have been "protective order," not "detective lawyer," although I will be using the latter in the movie version of this case. >>> Leland Ray 06/17/00 06:58PM >>> -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Taylor [mailto:bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 3:50 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl I think Kaplan took one look at the dvd-copy.com website and said subconsciously to every one of our points "What a load of crap - these guys are copying DVD's". If we want to make a sophisticated argument about reverse engineering or the Constitutional origin of fair use, or free speech, or anything else, we've got to secure some credibility and survive the "laughed out of court" test. ---------------------- Leland's comments: One of the ways I read these documents is to get a hint of how the case will be argued. The point Bryan makes is extremely important in light of Kaplan's comment that one side is "full of baloney." Up until now, he seems to have swayed by two basic motivations: 1. Move forward to trial quickly. Kaplan has said that he believes that there are not serious fact issues. 2. "straight face" test. The plaintiffs have relied very heavily on making the case sound plain and simple. Notice what Mr. Gold says in the discovery hearing: "I don't -- I don't know -- I don't actually know, but I would imagine there are very, very few, far less than 100 that are particularly relevant to the issues, because I don't think there are any factual issues. That's what I want to say about the adjournment. There is no question, they don't dispute, I believe, that there was circumvention here. That they have been trafficking in a circumvention device. That circumvention is a protective program that protects copyrighted material, they are trafficking in it. They are not photographers, they are not doing reverse engineering. And, obviously, your decision on the preliminary injunctive focused on all of those issues. If there are fact issues, I don't think there are very many, they certainly wouldn't take more than one or two experts to really be presented to your Honor..." Mr. Hernstadt for the defense replied to this point: "Plaintiffs think that it is a very simple, straightforward case. It is not. When this case was a preliminary injunction case, the facts were very important, what people put on their Web sites, what they said on their Web sites. There are DVD's, you can copy DVD's. Take this utility, you can use it to copy. Facts were very important. When they start with a detective lawyer, facts were very important. Here are the threatening e-mails. Here are the things that have happened to us. But when it comes to the trial, they're saying, this is very simple. There has been circumvention, we deny that there has been circumvention. This is a is circumvention device. We're not sure about that. There has been trafficking. We don't think that this constitutes trafficking in the statutory language. There was a point recently when someone associated with the plaintiffs was testifying before a Congressional committee. He said, that, although this case was still being litigated, he did not believe that you have the right to play a DVD unless you possessed the "proper equipment." This correlates closely with other statements, including a deposition quoted in this list. Notice this exchange: THE COURT: But I want to work through this. Now, the question of whether DECSS in fact decodes or gains access, that's a yes or no question, to which you are going to have experts testifying, and they may disagree. MR. HERNSTADT: Right. Look at the language of the question. The court is making "decoding" and "gaining access" synonyms. Now, obviously, a good judge may ask a question to see what are the limits of the argument. But I have not seen similar questioning of Mr Gold or any of the other attorneys. And that, that makes me very nervous indeed. Here are what I see are the central issues: 1. There is enormous worldwide interest in DVD as both a format for distribution of video and for high capacity data. As evidence, see slashdot postings, news stories, the sheer volume of LiViD materials, etc. 2. Video playback, either on a computer or a home player, is a complex process. No one programmer understands all the issues involved. For that reason, a group of programmers is required. 3. Producing reliable software requires that all units of the software system be subjected in independent testing and criticism. One popular way to do this is to release test programs that demonstrate separable components of the system under development. 4. A necessary step of video playback from DVDs is the translation of .vob files. Because .vob files are transformed .mp2 files, the most simple and efficient way to demonstrate the translation algorithm works is to release a test program that translates .vob files to .mp2 files. This is DeCSS, a classic mid-product of a large software development group. 5. The test program must have wide distribution to maximize the possibility that bugs will get reported to the original author. Notice the DeCSS source code shows that the author did, in fact, modify it to fix a divide by zero bug after release. 6. Open source operating systems exhibit a characteristic that they can understand and interpret a large number of data formats. It is to the advantage of the open source developers that they make their systems interoperate with as many data formats as possible. DVD is, in this sense, one of many. 7. Open source developers come from a broad spectrum of society, frequently spanning national borders. To the extent there has been anti-corporate and anti-copyright speech, that is because the normal corporate agreements that would suppress such speech are not present here. It should be obvious that in a volunteer effort, each contributor has different expressed motivations. ------ A few notes on #4, which is I believe the most central point. Suppose that CSS wasn't a transformation of .mp2, but it was, in fact, a complete video codec? In that case, the mid-products would probably not produce entire files, but individual frames or other internal details of the video. Such programs almost certainly exist for .mp2 files. In a software development effort where the CSS code was supplied pursuant to a DVDCCA license, the mid-products are less necessary because having the official code from DVDCCA removes the testing requirement of the transformational step. ------- Okay, so the big question that comes out of this is -- is the transformation of .vob -> .mp2 circumvention? If I were on the witness stand, I wouldn't answer that question, because I am not a lawyer and could not competentlyllthough this case was still being l opine on the statutory language. But as a humble common programmer, I don't see how I have any less "access to the work" with .vob files than I do with .mp2. After all, to me it looks like a pile of bits. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 11:10:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28164 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:10:37 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA28161 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:10:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20000619151213.14984.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:12:13 PDT Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:12:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Follow-up on Kaplan Hammering 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 --- Dan Steinberg wrote: > I'm definitely with Chris on this one. But I would also request that > no matter how listmembers feel about this topic, they refrain from > carrying on this thread or perhaps start a separate list. Even > continuing to discuss whether we should trash the judge or not is the > wrong thing to do, IMHO. As with most things, it is good to criticize work and bad to insult people. When the person in question is a federal judge, respect for the office amplifies this greatly. I think Kaplan's reactions early on are indiciative of the "what a bunch of crap" reaction. I think if we can get passed this (we're making good progress), it may even backfire on the plaintiffs if Kaplan realizes they abused their credibility to villify the defendents in ways that were untrue. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 12:13:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28986 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:13:32 -0400 Received: from dial187.roadrunner.com (dial187.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.187] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28983 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:13:28 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial187.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01026 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:15:54 -0600 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:15:53 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Message-ID: <20000619101553.A444@localhost> References: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B69D@NTSERVER> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B69D@NTSERVER>; from mpatton@nilles-nilles.com on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 12:49:27PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 12:49:27PM -0500, S. Michael Patton wrote: > > Sparky wrote: > > > Doug Hudson wrote: [ ... tying licenses re: Morton Salt and US v. Paramount ... ] > > > Which you -can- do, unfortunately. Someone can sell you > > > "crippleware" and you have to buy a second key to get full access. > > > The difference here is the consumer is made to believe they > > > are getting full home use rights, while the distributor is actually > > > barring most fair uses in toto under the legislative guise of 1201. > > > > Isn't this different from DVDs? the above sounds like some kind of > > "licensing", the customer gets a certain level of functionality from a > > package, they have options at the time of purchase of any such level > > they want, higher levels cost more $. Later they can buy into a higher > > level of functionality ("upgrade" though the functionality was always > > there, no extra files added). either this, or this is just a fancy type of > > shareware where you're sort of authorized to own/use from the start because > > you've already paid a fee. > > You raise a good point. "Purchase" of a DVD, like most programs "sold" > nowadays, may not pass ownership of the actual physical object to you. Many > software licenses explicitly state that you do not own the physical media on > which the program is recorded. These weasel words permit the seller to deny > you the rights that an "owner of a copy" has under copyright law. If you do > not "own" the copy, you are only licensed to use it, and the extent of your > rights can be found only in the license agreement. The bizzare thing is > that everyone else who "rents" us an object always worries about when and > where the object will be returned. Cars, carpet cleaners, power tools and > the like, all have an intrinsic worth greater than the rental/license fee. > Software, because of its low cost to produce, need not be returned. I > expect that car companies and others will soon get into the act of > "licensing" the embedded software that runs their equipment to prevent such > things as reverse engineering and the like. As I understand it the main claim is not "licensing" a copy (i.e. the physical thing); rather the claim is that the work is "licensed". The folks who want to write their own copyright laws via contract have various ways to trying to change the subject away from, "Why should you be able to write your own coypright statute via contract?" to "We _need_ this *protection* to operate our business." Once that change of primary subject is effected, various ad hoc reasons are offered why this attempt to abolish publication in favor of privacation isn't so bad. 'The Metamorphosis of Contract into Expand', David Nimmer, Elliot Brown, Gary N. Frischling, Calif. L. Rev. _87_, 17 (1999) 'Contract and Copyright are not at War: A Reply to "The Metamorphosis of Contract into Expand"' Joel Rothstein Wolfson, Calif. L. Rev. _87_, 79 (1999). As Bryan has already noted, things very similar to this have been tried long ago in relation to patent. It is perhaps also worth noting that for several decades the motion picture studios have not sold copies of theater prints, thus retaining control of the high-quality versions of a work by retaining control of the copies. This suggests a motivation for section 1201 as an extension of that policy of control to a fairly new market. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 12:14:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29005 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:14:09 -0400 Received: from rmx194-mta.mail.com (rmx194-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.41]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29002 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:14:08 -0400 From: majeredb8@altavista.net Received: from weba8.iname.net (weba8.iname.net [165.251.4.18]) by rmx194-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06084 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by weba8.iname.net (8.9.1a/8.9.2.Alpha2) id MAA24228; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:16:12 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0006191216129D.07448@weba8.iname.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes, I know that it's already out there, but... DivX is a hacked version of the WMA codec from Microsoft's Windows Media Player. DivX files are encoded AVI files, and require the codec to be viewed. A 1 minute video that I viewed was ~11-12MB. Unfortunately, DivX is difficult to compile. Salon did an article detailing the process. First, the person must obtain a program such as DeCSS, DVDrip, VOBdec, etc. to decode the DVD. Then the file has to be split into video and audio streams. Then both have to be formatted for viewing. Finally, both the audio and video streams must be precisely lined up on the encoder for an accurate feed. Hit Gnutella sometime to see if you can find a good DivX file. You probably won't. The time and dedication it takes to come up with a high-quality DivX file is almost not worth it. The only threat to the movie industry comes from truly dedicated people who purchase DVD's and want to make a backup of the DVD as a DivX-encoded file... which is the case in a nutshell. > If I am correct she is referring to the fact the Schumann points out the possible > usage of the DivX compression codec (which, as I understand it, is a mysteriously > recently leaked technology from Microsoft ... does anyone have more info on this > codec This case isn't about Napster or any file sharing utility. It's about the harms of the general user accessing copyrighted material. What she's saying is that the general user is a naughty, naughty pirate who will do anything to save a buck. So what. The stale lock analogy plays in here. Just because someone could break into a house doesn't mean that the contractors should patent the key and put a "do not copy" label on the side. If the owner locks the keys in, he or she has to a) buy a new lock or key from the contractor or b) buy a new house. > "5. I am aware of the impact that Napster and like systems have had on the audio > recording industry [...] Given the exponential growth of these so-called file-sharing > technologies among computer users in the mainstream, there is a real likelihood > that the injury caused by vast numbers of people trading unauthorized copies of > films and other entertainment products over the Internet will dwarf more > "traditional," commercial piracy operations." Steve Sawyer MajereDB8@altavista.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 12:31:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29295 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:31:05 -0400 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 MAA29292 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:31:03 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA13996 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:33:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:33:06 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Message-ID: <20000619113306.A13752@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <394B1439.602AE653@mninter.net> <20000617125119.W15588@zork.net> <394C6045.F73B1B69@mninter.net> <003901bfd925$c416a920$d502fea9@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <003901bfd925$c416a920$d502fea9@oemcomputer>; from dhudson@law.gwu.edu on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 09:04:40AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 09:04:40AM -0400, Doug Hudson wrote: > > CSS is patentable, and there are many patents surrounding CSS. For > instance, Fire Drake's suggestion that we create a ReCSS encryption program > would be a violation of the CSS patent; even if created for litigation, it > would allow the MPAA to bring a patent claim into the case. Its a very bad > idea, in my opinion, and I'm not going to do it. Questions: Which patent do you believe covers a CSS encryption program? Perhaps there's ways to write it without infringing. Or perhaps someone in a software-patent-free country is interested. Why would a third-party's creation of a CSS encryption program affect Universal vs. 2600 or DVDCCA vs. (the world)? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 12:47:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29430 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:47:13 -0400 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 MAA29427 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:47:11 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA14041 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:49:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:49:18 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS business practices (was ReCSS) Message-ID: <20000619114918.B13752@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DC7@c100.clearway.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: ; from mpav@purdue.edu on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:16:43PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Are you sure? Web sites for DVD manufacturing houses imply that CSS encryption is done at their facility during one of the mastering stages. Technicolor even says that it's _free_. Wouldn't that imply that manufacturers have a fairly free hand (once buying licensed hardware/software) in creating CSS-encrypted discs? Why wouldn't manufacturers be allowed to generate disc and title keys themselves? http://www.technicolor.com/services/DVD2000v1.pdf page 37: CSS Content Scramble System * Digital Copy Protection for DVD-Video Spec Title Sets * Technology approved by DVD Forum with the approval of MPAA and CPTWG * Applies to ".VOB" files or "Video Object Units" * CSS is developed for the benefit of and as a security enhancement for DVD-Video Media * IT'S FREE at Technicolor!!! On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:16:43PM -0500, matthew.r.pavlovich.1 wrote: > You would have to get a license for a title key, or sign up with a major > studio to produce the DVDs (in which case they already have access to > keys). I do not know of any independant movie maker that produced DVDs w/ > a CSS and not signed on with a big studio, it seems like something that > most independants wouldn't want to deal with. Just pay 'the man' and they > are set. > > There are content creation suites available for making DVD data (ie home > moives, etc), but those won't be encrypted. > > MRP > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Leland Ray wrote: > > > > > This whole thread brings up some interesting questions about the > > business practices in regards to CSS. > > > > > > Are there any restrictions regarding CSS for distributors of > > DVDs? For stores that sell DVDs? [1] > > > > If I decide to produce a movie, and I want to distribute it with CSS, > > do I have to pay for a title key? Or is CSS simply unavailable unless > > I sign up with one of the big studios? > > > > In fact, how the heck DO I get my movie mastered with CSS? Are there > > only certain companies licensed to product such a thing? In what form > > do I give them the master media? > > > > Suppose I am one of the major motion picture studios, and I contract > > for a movie, and the producer emphatically does not want the DVD > > distribution to be CSS protected? Could a producer negotiate such a > > contract, or might that run afoul of other agreements between > > studios? If yes, which ones? > > > > > > It strikes me that as we throw around anti-trust arguments and tying, > > combined with the mandatory player licensing, this line of questioning > > could bear fruit. > > > > [1] Personal anecdote from the software world: certain international > > software distributors will not sell your product unless you can > > demonstrate to them that you have certain TPMs in place. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 12:57:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29651 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:57:00 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29648 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:56:59 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:59:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:59:07 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? 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, 19 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > I think it might be. Until recently M$ products couldn't handle /partitions/ > > larger than 2GiB. In fact, and somebody more knowledgeable should verify > > this, I don't think the current default builds of Ext2 go over 2GiB. If > > both Linux and Windows have trouble with big files, it makes the claims of > > an imminent threat to copyright owners rather ... amusing? I believe Ext2 can be 4gigs, but it is a mute point, because yesterday I built a 26 gig ReiserFS filesystem. Filesystem technology moves at a rate where the end user will notice it faster than network technology. 1 improvement in fs technology can reach everyone, but it takes several leaps in network technology before everyone can benefit. There are 3 or 4 new filesystems that will be included in the next round of devel kernels, and ReiserFS may make it into a later 2.4.x (2.4.0 release < 6wks). All these filesystems would easily be able to handle much large partition sizes. > I think the .vob files are split into several files on a DVD as a > workaround for filesystem ( UDF? ) size limitations. Splitting files > solves lots of problems, but doesn't make download any faster. They are split to be less than 1gig, which is the max file size for the ISO9660 filesystem, which is the same fs found on most data CD's. Check your DVD's, you'll see a lot of 1,073,xxx,xxx sized files. They used this extended version of the CD ROM fs to speed up deployment. MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 13:01:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA29816 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:01:08 -0400 Received: from web510.mail.yahoo.com (web510.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA29813 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:01:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20000619170241.9120.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:02:41 PDT Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:02:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match 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: > 'The Metamorphosis of Contract into Expand', David Nimmer, Elliot > Brown, Gary N. Frischling, Calif. L. Rev. _87_, 17 (1999) I found this online somewhere on the Berkman Center site. I assume that this is an fair use by Harvard, since it's non-profit in an acedemic setting. It was in this awful text format, so I html-ified it: http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/papers/metamorphosis.html The paper is basically Nimmer ragging at length on Easterbrook for the pre-emption analysis in ProCD. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 13:03:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA29919 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:03:17 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29916 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:03:16 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA01729 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:05:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:05:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? 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 06/19/00 at 11:59, 'twas brillig and matthew.r.pavlovich.1 scrobe: > > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > > I think it might be. Until recently M$ products couldn't handle /partitions/ > > > larger than 2GiB. In fact, and somebody more knowledgeable should verify > > > this, I don't think the current default builds of Ext2 go over 2GiB. If > > > both Linux and Windows have trouble with big files, it makes the claims of > > > an imminent threat to copyright owners rather ... amusing? > > I believe Ext2 can be 4gigs, but it is a mute point, because yesterday I > built a 26 gig ReiserFS filesystem. [...] I have built ext2 filesystems in excess of 60 gig on RAID hardware. (The only limit under ext2 pertinent to the instant discussion is an individual filesize limit, which AFAIK is 2G.) Cheers, Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 13:21:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30209 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:21:40 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30206 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:21:38 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FWE0088IWA1EU@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:02:17 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS business practices (was ReCSS) In-reply-to: <20000619114918.B13752@thud.reric.net> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FWE0088KWA1EU@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: ; from mpav@purdue.edu on Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:16:43PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Are you sure? Web sites for DVD manufacturing houses imply that CSS > encryption is done at their facility during one of the mastering stages. > Technicolor even says that it's _free_. Wouldn't that imply that > manufacturers have a fairly free hand (once buying licensed > hardware/software) in creating CSS-encrypted discs? Why wouldn't > manufacturers be allowed to generate disc and title keys themselves? > > http://www.technicolor.com/services/DVD2000v1.pdf page 37: Well, the cost of obtaining a CSS title key is probably nominal in comparison to the cost of ordering the mastering of millions of DVD discs. I suspect them saying its free is like saying cell phones are free. (I am just guessing about this.) -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 13:40:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30437 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:40:29 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30434 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:40:28 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13770 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:42:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <394E4E92.135FE6D7@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:47:15 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Impressions of Gronich decl 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 must wonder what makes people cynical enough to > delay perfectly acceptable income and tons of > favorable PR simply to make economically insignificant > sorts of copying marginally more difficult? Because the power they would acquire by obliterating fair use would make the money they are making today look like small potatoes. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 13:44:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30563 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:44:38 -0400 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 NAB30559 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:44:35 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1345dD-0005ey-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:46:43 +0200 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:46:43 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS business practices (was ReCSS) In-Reply-To: <20000619114918.B13752@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 Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > Are you sure? Web sites for DVD manufacturing houses imply that CSS > encryption is done at their facility during one of the mastering stages. > Technicolor even says that it's _free_. The interesting question is whether you as a copyright holder by contract delegates any access granting authority to the DVD CCA. What contract do you enter into to burn a CSS encrypted disc ? Is it possible to get a copy of the contract without signing any NDAs ? ( Could someone please obtain a copy of the contract and post it on the web ? ) 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 Jun 19 13:49:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30677 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:49:16 -0400 Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (sendmail@mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.3.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30674 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:49:15 -0400 Received: from ntserver.nilles-nilles.com ([169.207.176.194]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.9.1) id MAA20940 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:51:22 -0500 Received: by NTSERVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:53:41 -0500 Message-ID: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B6A1@NTSERVER> From: "S. Michael Patton" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:53:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Taylor [mailto:bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 12:03 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match > > I found this online somewhere on the Berkman Center site. I > assume that > this is an fair use by Harvard, since it's non-profit in an acedemic > setting. > > It was in this awful text format, so I html-ified it: > http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/papers/metamorphosis.html > Bryan, I tried to get at your metamorphosis.html document and could not make a connection. Error 404, I believe. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 13:59:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30764 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:59:15 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30761 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:59:14 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:01:23 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:01:23 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS business practices (was ReCSS) In-Reply-To: <20000619114918.B13752@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 They don't charge extra for using CSS, but you still have to pay them to manufacture your content. Technicolor obviously has a (set of) title key(s). The main point is that no one can create encrypted content using a toolset on their local PC. MRP On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > Are you sure? Web sites for DVD manufacturing houses imply that CSS > encryption is done at their facility during one of the mastering stages. > Technicolor even says that it's _free_. Wouldn't that imply that > manufacturers have a fairly free hand (once buying licensed > hardware/software) in creating CSS-encrypted discs? Why wouldn't > manufacturers be allowed to generate disc and title keys themselves? > > http://www.technicolor.com/services/DVD2000v1.pdf page 37: > > CSS > Content Scramble System > * Digital Copy Protection for DVD-Video Spec Title Sets > * Technology approved by DVD Forum with the approval of > MPAA and CPTWG > * Applies to ".VOB" files or "Video Object Units" > * CSS is developed for the benefit of and as a security > enhancement for DVD-Video Media > * IT'S FREE at Technicolor!!! > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:16:43PM -0500, matthew.r.pavlovich.1 wrote: > > You would have to get a license for a title key, or sign up with a major > > studio to produce the DVDs (in which case they already have access to > > keys). I do not know of any independant movie maker that produced DVDs w/ > > a CSS and not signed on with a big studio, it seems like something that > > most independants wouldn't want to deal with. Just pay 'the man' and they > > are set. > > > > There are content creation suites available for making DVD data (ie home > > moives, etc), but those won't be encrypted. > > > > MRP > > > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Leland Ray wrote: > > > > > > > > This whole thread brings up some interesting questions about the > > > business practices in regards to CSS. > > > > > > > > > Are there any restrictions regarding CSS for distributors of > > > DVDs? For stores that sell DVDs? [1] > > > > > > If I decide to produce a movie, and I want to distribute it with CSS, > > > do I have to pay for a title key? Or is CSS simply unavailable unless > > > I sign up with one of the big studios? > > > > > > In fact, how the heck DO I get my movie mastered with CSS? Are there > > > only certain companies licensed to product such a thing? In what form > > > do I give them the master media? > > > > > > Suppose I am one of the major motion picture studios, and I contract > > > for a movie, and the producer emphatically does not want the DVD > > > distribution to be CSS protected? Could a producer negotiate such a > > > contract, or might that run afoul of other agreements between > > > studios? If yes, which ones? > > > > > > > > > It strikes me that as we throw around anti-trust arguments and tying, > > > combined with the mandatory player licensing, this line of questioning > > > could bear fruit. > > > > > > [1] Personal anecdote from the software world: certain international > > > software distributors will not sell your product unless you can > > > demonstrate to them that you have certain TPMs in place. > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 14:01:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA30900 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:01:02 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA30865 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:01:00 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:03:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:03:09 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAT32 filesize max? 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 > I have built ext2 filesystems in excess of 60 gig on RAID > hardware. (The only limit under ext2 pertinent to the instant > discussion is an individual filesize limit, which AFAIK is 2G.) That sounds right.. individual files size, vs. file system size. The man page didn't have anything on it, but I *knew* it was better than the run of the mill MS FS. :) MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 14:09:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA31131 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:09:04 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA31128 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:09:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20000619181041.14362.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:10:41 PDT Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:10:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match 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 --- "S. Michael Patton" wrote: > http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/papers/metamorphosis.html > > Bryan, I tried to get at your metamorphosis.html document and could > not make a connection. Error 404, I believe. Hmm. I clicked on it in your reply and it worked. Maybe just try again. Wendy, if you read this, maybe we could mirror this article on eon? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 14:30:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA31333 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:30:01 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA31330 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:29:59 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA15795 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:31:54 -0500 Message-ID: <394E63B1.12B26FA6@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:17:21 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] "Subject Line" 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 Has anyone considered the legality of software that when run writes the source code to DeCSS? Maybe compiled and executed its output, too, so as to be transparent to the user? Sounds here like it puts the limitation of the anti-circumvention provisions in the realm of physical objects, where they belong. It is certainly not illegal to sell manufacturing equipment or electronic components that can be used to create devices that circumvent. This would be the digital analogy, and is far easier to do with a computer than with physical objects. Has anyone used such a meta-code argument against a law that made a specific application of software illegal in court before? Has there ever been such a law, before? Chris (inquisitive) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 14:39:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA31485 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:39:02 -0400 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA31482 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:39:01 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniggh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.66.17]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA23784 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006191841.OAA23784@granger.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:36:17 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Hearings in HTML In-Reply-To: <394D5F40.65CEC5BF@mninter.net> References: <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <200006180016.UAA15640@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617211719.B23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180147.VAA32762@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000617221612.D23755@linuxpower.org> <200006180854.EAA32154@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <20000618193408.E23755@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 Craig Markwardt has converted to HTML the "DMCA Hearings by U.S. Copyright Office on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures," held in May in D.C. and California. This index of the papers at: http://cryptome.org/dmca-hearings.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ May 2: Washington, D.C. Peter Jaszi (Digital Future Coalition); Sarah Wiant (American Association of Law Libraries); Betty Landesman (D.C. Library Association); Christopher A. Mohr (American Business Pres); David Mirchin (SilverPlatter); Joseph Montoro (Spectrum Software); Keith Kupferschmid (Software & Information Industry Assoc.) http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-2.html (284K) ------------------------------------------------------------------ May 3: Washington, D.C. Cary Sherman (RIAA); Robert Hildeman (Streambox); Rodney Petersen (University of Maryland); Aline Soules (University of Michigan); Consortium of College and University Media Centers (Diana Vogelsong, Jeff Clark, Dan Hamby) http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-3.html (180K) ------------------------------------------------------------------ May 4: Washington, D.C. Arnold P. Lutzker (American Library Assoc., et al.); James G. Neal (American Library Assoc.); Julie E. Cohen (Georgetown Univ.); Bernard Sorkin (MPAA, Time Warner); Richard Weisgrau (American Society of Media Photographers); Victor Perlman (American Society of Media Photographers); Steven J. Metalitz (Smith & Metalitz, L.L.P.) http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-4.html (284K) ------------------------------------------------------------------ May 18: Stanford, California Siva Vaidhyanathan (New York Univ.); Karen Coyle (California Digital Library, Univ. of California); Linda Crowe (American Library Assoc.); Laura Gassaway (American Assoc. of Universities, et al.) http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-18.html (122K) ------------------------------------------------------------------ May 19: Stanford, California Paul Hughes (Business Software Alliance, Adobe Systems); Emery Simon (BSA); Fred Weingarten (American Library Assoc.); Steve Metalitz; Robin Gross (EFF); Dean Marks (MPAA); Riley Russel (Sony Computer Entertainment America); Jonathan Hangartner (Bleem, Inc.); Morton Goldberg (Cown, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.) http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-19.html (435K) ------------------------------------------------------------------ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 14:47:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA31640 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:47:51 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA31637 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:47:49 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:49:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:49:57 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Hearings in HTML In-Reply-To: <200006191841.OAA23784@granger.mail.mindspring.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 Argh. Just when I thought I'd get a break. Anyone up for diggin through all of this to find something useful? MRP On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > Craig Markwardt has converted to HTML the "DMCA Hearings by U.S. > Copyright Office on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention > of Technological Measures," held in May in D.C. and California. > > This index of the papers at: > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-hearings.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > May 2: Washington, D.C. > > Peter Jaszi (Digital Future Coalition); Sarah Wiant (American > Association of Law Libraries); Betty Landesman (D.C. Library > Association); Christopher A. Mohr (American Business Pres); David > Mirchin (SilverPlatter); Joseph Montoro (Spectrum Software); Keith > Kupferschmid (Software & Information Industry Assoc.) > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-2.html (284K) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > May 3: Washington, D.C. > > Cary Sherman (RIAA); Robert Hildeman (Streambox); Rodney Petersen > (University of Maryland); Aline Soules (University of Michigan); > Consortium of College and University Media Centers (Diana > Vogelsong, Jeff Clark, Dan Hamby) > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-3.html (180K) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > May 4: Washington, D.C. > > Arnold P. Lutzker (American Library Assoc., et al.); James G. Neal > (American Library Assoc.); Julie E. Cohen (Georgetown Univ.); > Bernard Sorkin (MPAA, Time Warner); Richard Weisgrau (American > Society of Media Photographers); Victor Perlman (American Society > of Media Photographers); Steven J. Metalitz (Smith & Metalitz, > L.L.P.) > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-4.html (284K) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > May 18: Stanford, California > > Siva Vaidhyanathan (New York Univ.); Karen Coyle (California > Digital Library, Univ. of California); Linda Crowe (American > Library Assoc.); Laura Gassaway (American Assoc. of Universities, > et al.) > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-18.html (122K) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > May 19: Stanford, California > > Paul Hughes (Business Software Alliance, Adobe Systems); Emery > Simon (BSA); Fred Weingarten (American Library Assoc.); Steve > Metalitz; Robin Gross (EFF); Dean Marks (MPAA); Riley Russel (Sony > Computer Entertainment America); Jonathan Hangartner (Bleem, Inc.); > Morton Goldberg (Cown, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.) > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-19.html (435K) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 15:07:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA31915 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:07:26 -0400 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 PAA31911 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:07:25 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max01-19.suba.com [206.69.121.211]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA00156 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:08:38 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:08:11 -0500 Message-ID: <000501bfda21$b6032aa0$d37945ce@bugbug> 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: <20000619181041.14362.qmail@web515.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 I got it. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Bryan Taylor > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 1:11 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match > > > > --- "S. Michael Patton" wrote: > > http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/papers/metamorphosis.html > > > > Bryan, I tried to get at your metamorphosis.html document and could > > not make a connection. Error 404, I believe. > > Hmm. I clicked on it in your reply and it worked. Maybe just try again. > > Wendy, if you read this, maybe we could mirror this article on eon? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com/ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 15:17:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA32073 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:17:04 -0400 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 PAA32070 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:17:02 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA14436 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:19:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:19:09 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS business practices (was ReCSS) Message-ID: <20000619141909.A14404@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000619114918.B13752@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: ; from mpav@purdue.edu on Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 01:01:23PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 01:01:23PM -0500, matthew.r.pavlovich.1 wrote: > > They don't charge extra for using CSS, but you still have to pay them to > manufacture your content. Technicolor obviously has a (set of) title > key(s). > > The main point is that no one can create encrypted content using a toolset > on their local PC. Can you clarify this? Is there a technical reason why this wouldn't be true, or do you mean "without fear of legal action"? We all realize that neither disc manufacturers nor player manufacturers can generate their own player keys, but why would there be any restriction on title keys? Aren't they just randomly generated for each new disc? If, assuming I have a DVD factory in my basement, I wanted to make a CSS-scrambled DVD, couldn't I just: 1. Use brute force on another DVD to find all the player keys. 2. Make up a random disk key and a dozen title keys. 3. Encrypt disk key with player keys and title keys with disk key and store in correct locations on new DVD master. Sorry, Matt, I'm not questioning whether what you say is correct, I'm just trying to understand in detail why one would need the DVDCCA to give out title keys. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 15:28:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA32295 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:28:09 -0400 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA32292 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:28:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20000619192945.11585.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:29:45 PDT Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:29:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Hearings in HTML 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 --- "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" wrote: > > Argh. Just when I thought I'd get a break. Anyone up for diggin > through all of this to find something useful? I read through several of them before they were html. If I recall Sorkin (MPAA, Time Warner) mentioned our submission (from the Copyright's Commons) and said basically that we were only speculating about future evils that copyright holders could do, but that their piracy problems are real today. I think Wendy mentioned that the Copyright Office is accepting post-hearing comments. It'd be kind of fun to point out "who's full of baloney" using their deposition testimony as the prime evidence. Perhaps a group reply is a good use for the CVS repository that I have just set-up on eon. > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > > > Craig Markwardt has converted to HTML the "DMCA Hearings by U.S. > > Copyright Office on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention > > of Technological Measures," held in May in D.C. and California. > > > > This index of the papers at: > > > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-hearings.html > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > May 2: Washington, D.C. > > > > Peter Jaszi (Digital Future Coalition); Sarah Wiant (American > > Association of Law Libraries); Betty Landesman (D.C. Library > > Association); Christopher A. Mohr (American Business Pres); David > > Mirchin (SilverPlatter); Joseph Montoro (Spectrum Software); Keith > > Kupferschmid (Software & Information Industry Assoc.) > > > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-2.html (284K) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > May 3: Washington, D.C. > > > > Cary Sherman (RIAA); Robert Hildeman (Streambox); Rodney Petersen > > (University of Maryland); Aline Soules (University of Michigan); > > Consortium of College and University Media Centers (Diana > > Vogelsong, Jeff Clark, Dan Hamby) > > > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-3.html (180K) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > May 4: Washington, D.C. > > > > Arnold P. Lutzker (American Library Assoc., et al.); James G. Neal > > (American Library Assoc.); Julie E. Cohen (Georgetown Univ.); > > Bernard Sorkin (MPAA, Time Warner); Richard Weisgrau (American > > Society of Media Photographers); Victor Perlman (American Society > > of Media Photographers); Steven J. Metalitz (Smith & Metalitz, > > L.L.P.) > > > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-4.html (284K) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > May 18: Stanford, California > > > > Siva Vaidhyanathan (New York Univ.); Karen Coyle (California > > Digital Library, Univ. of California); Linda Crowe (American > > Library Assoc.); Laura Gassaway (American Assoc. of Universities, > > et al.) > > > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-18.html (122K) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > May 19: Stanford, California > > > > Paul Hughes (Business Software Alliance, Adobe Systems); Emery > > Simon (BSA); Fred Weingarten (American Library Assoc.); Steve > > Metalitz; Robin Gross (EFF); Dean Marks (MPAA); Riley Russel (Sony > > Computer Entertainment America); Jonathan Hangartner (Bleem, Inc.); > > > Morton Goldberg (Cown, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.) > > > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-19.html (435K) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 15:55:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA32548 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:55:38 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA32545 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:55:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23331 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:57:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:57:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Hearings in HTML In-Reply-To: <20000619192945.11585.qmail@web513.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 Well it's refreshing to know that when writing new laws, lawmakers aren't supposed to consider the possible effects of the laws; only the attempts to solve current problems immediately. On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" wrote: > > > > Argh. Just when I thought I'd get a break. Anyone up for diggin > > through all of this to find something useful? > > I read through several of them before they were html. If I recall > Sorkin (MPAA, Time Warner) mentioned our submission (from the > Copyright's Commons) and said basically that we were only speculating > about future evils that copyright holders could do, but that their > piracy problems are real today. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 16:36:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00460 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:36:56 -0400 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 QAA00456 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:36:54 -0400 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 NAA25532 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:36:40 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23180; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:35:36 -0700 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: [dvd-discuss] DMCA hearings Date: 19 Jun 2000 13:34:30 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 13 Message-ID: <8im04m$mka$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Did anyone notice the following claims by Dean Marks, who appeared at the DMCA hearings on behalf of Time Warner and the MPAA? He said: 13 And indeed, two CSS 14 licensees have in fact developed CSS implementations 15 for the Linux operating system. One, called Sigma 16 Systems, is hardware-based and another -- whose name 17 I unfortunately don't have with me -- is software- 18 based. But both of these implementations are 19 available on the market. http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-19.html#page188 Is this correct? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 16:58:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00682 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:58:24 -0400 Received: from web55.ntx.net (web55.ntx.net [209.1.144.165]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA00679 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:58:20 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (gdsl217.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.254.217]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA24127 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394E88A0.B9C9A8D2@cdpage.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:54:57 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA hearings References: <8im04m$mka$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.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 "David A. Wagner" wrote: > Did anyone notice the following claims by Dean Marks, who appeared at > the DMCA hearings on behalf of Time Warner and the MPAA? He said: > > 13 And indeed, two CSS > 14 licensees have in fact developed CSS implementations > 15 for the Linux operating system. One, called Sigma > 16 Systems, is hardware-based and another -- whose name > 17 I unfortunately don't have with me -- is software- > 18 based. But both of these implementations are > 19 available on the market. > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-19.html#page188 > > Is this correct? "Available on the market" might be stretching it. Sigma Designs made this announcement February 1, 2000. http://www.sigmadesigns.com/press/000201.htm It's kind of hard to search for the other without the name of the company. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 17:02:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00857 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:02:57 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00854 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:02:56 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:08:43 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DCC@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Hearings in HTML Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:08:41 -0400 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 http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-3.html (p. 77), Jeff Clark of the CCUMC speaking: 2 First example. The in-process legal 3 action, or I should say actions of several types, 4 against the DeCSS decryption of DVD software is 5 relevant to the following teaching method that was 6 cited by a CCUMC member. Quote. "One very popular 7 method used in visual media studies is the direct 8 side-by-side comparison of two similar pieces. In 9 this instructional style, the two examples are 10 placed side by side in Quicktime windows and the 11 clips are played first on one side, then on the 12 other. The instructor then has the ability to line 13 up exact points in the two scenes to demonstrate 14 visual differences. With the proposed DMCA's 15 provisions, we would be unable to do this simple 16 task because the visual media would be protected." 17 Unquote. This is from page 81: 4 MS. GOSLINS: First, I'd like to ask 5 some questions of CCUMC. I was gratified to see 6 specific examples in your testimony because that's 7 something that's very helpful to us as we try and 8 figure out impact as we go along. I had some 9 questions about the specific examples you were 10 citing to, so if I could just ask you some questions 11 about those. 12 The first bullet point in your examples 13 is the DVD example of needing to play clips 14 simultaneously in Quicktime windows. I guess I was 15 unclear about how access controls are a problem in 16 doing this. 17 MR. CLARK: Well, until the advent of 18 the decryption, because of a key that was left open 19 in the DVD encryption and the cases that have 20 resulted from that, you could not copy DVD either in 21 an analog format or a digital format into another 22 piece of software like Quicktime to perform this 23 kind of teaching purpose. I guess the access issue 24 involved in this, was that that broken code is 25 what's under litigation along with the people who 26 have disseminated it. If DeCSS really was used to do this educational project, it is a great example of fair use. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 17:06:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01130 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:06:41 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01127 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:06:40 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:08:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:08:49 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA hearings In-Reply-To: <8im04m$mka$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 It should actually be (3), including Sigma Designs. Sigma Designs is going to bundle support for one of their hardware boards, and the other two are Intervideo's LinDVD, and LSDVD. Sigma Designs is the only one that is close to being out of vaporware status, whereas Intervideo doesn't even have a press release, and LSDVD is being developed in a little more secrecy. The (main) issue isn't whether one exists or not, but that one did not exist, and due to the reverse engineering of several of the key components, we are be able to have support for the technology. There are lots of projects that rely on reverse engineering in order to be able to provide support for various technologies, I have cited Samba in the past. MRP On 19 Jun 2000, David A. Wagner wrote: > Did anyone notice the following claims by Dean Marks, who appeared at > the DMCA hearings on behalf of Time Warner and the MPAA? He said: > > 13 And indeed, two CSS > 14 licensees have in fact developed CSS implementations > 15 for the Linux operating system. One, called Sigma > 16 Systems, is hardware-based and another -- whose name > 17 I unfortunately don't have with me -- is software- > 18 based. But both of these implementations are > 19 available on the market. > http://cryptome.org/dmca-may-19.html#page188 > > Is this correct? > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 17:33:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01420 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:33:27 -0400 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 RAA01417 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:33:25 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1349Cg-000107-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:35:34 +0200 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:35:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Hearings in HTML In-Reply-To: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DCC@c100.clearway.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, 19 Jun 2000, Leland Ray wrote: > [SNIP] > If DeCSS really was used to do this educational project, it > is a great example of fair use. > This reminds me of a feature a while back on slashdot, where appearantly a philosophy class is beeing taught, based on The Matrix. http://scifi.ign.com/movies/3503.html I wonder if fair use of the movie has been a problem in this course. Anyone willing to investigate this ? It could provide another example of DeCSS as a fair use tool. 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 Jun 19 17:51:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01631 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:51:23 -0400 Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01628 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:51:22 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([24.13.176.232]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with ESMTP id <20000619215330.DHBW20009.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@[192.168.1.100]> for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:53:30 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:53:32 -0700 Subject: [dvd-discuss] Valenti deposition in RealAudio From: Danny Silverman To: DVD-Discuss Message-ID: 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 Valenti's deposition is up in RealAudio on 2600.com. Very interesting - completely different when it's not written but spoken. Wow. Is this guy really this stupid? \\|// (o o) ------------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------------------------- If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Danny Silverman | webmaster@mindwire.org Webmaster, EduDyne Foundation | http://www.mindwire.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 18:21:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA01892 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:21:20 -0400 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 SAA01889 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:21:18 -0400 Received: from ip78.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.79.78]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 1349x1-0006yD-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:23:28 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA hearings Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:17:34 -0400 Message-ID: References: <8im04m$mka$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <394E88A0.B9C9A8D2@cdpage.com> In-Reply-To: <394E88A0.B9C9A8D2@cdpage.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 SAA01890 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Sigma Designs made this announcement February 1, 2000. > >http://www.sigmadesigns.com/press/000201.htm > >It's kind of hard to search for the other without the name of the >company. Intervideo also announced LinDVD a Linux port of WinDVD to be available late Q2, 2000. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000330/ca_intervi_1.html or if you can read Tiawanese... http://www.intervideo.com.tw/news.htm ATI also made some announcements about Linux that hinted at future DVD/MPEG-2 support as well , but so far nothing definite: http://www.ati.com/na/pages/resource_centre/dev_rel/linux.html __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 20:14:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02538 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:14:27 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02535 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:14:25 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:17:03 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C61@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:17:01 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Wilde [mailto:wilde.private@wholeworld.com] ... > > Again, here's a fuller excerpt from the Attaway deposition > (which you can > find on 2600): > > 21 Q. Okay. And in the context of DVDs > 22 specifically, does the consumer get authorized > 23 access to the material on the DVD by purchasing the > 24 DVD? > 25 A. No. > > 30 > 1 Q. Why is that? Could you explain that? > 2 A. In order to obtain authorized access to a > 3 DVD, the consumer has to in effect make two > 4 purchases. He or she has to buy a D -- the > 5 software, a DVD disk. > 6 Q. The media? > 7 A. The media, and also has to purchase a DVD > 8 display device, which is specifically authorized to > 9 obtain access to the motion picture in an > 10 intelligible form under certain terms and > 11 conditions. > > Ah, but for the lack of a follow-up question... Q: And how or where is the consumer informed of this requirement? A: ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 20:16:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02625 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:16:49 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02622 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:16:48 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:19:31 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C62@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:19:30 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: S. Michael Patton [mailto:mpatton@nilles-nilles.com] ... > You raise a good point. "Purchase" of a DVD, like most > programs "sold" > nowadays, may not pass ownership of the actual physical > object to you. Many > software licenses explicitly state that you do not own the > physical media on > which the program is recorded. These weasel words permit the > seller to deny > you the rights that an "owner of a copy" has under copyright > law. If you do > not "own" the copy, you are only licensed to use it, and the > extent of your > rights can be found only in the license agreement. ... and this case may result in the motion picture industry changing the licensing terms ... but _to_date_ the only terms given where the consumer has access is "for home use only" "not for public showing" or similar phrases. There is nada, zip, zilch, about restrictions of the tools by which you access the work in the _current_ license. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 20:19:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02683 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:19:48 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02680 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:19:47 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:22:30 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C63@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:22:28 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Leland Ray [mailto:Ray@clearway.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 3:41 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match > > > > This takes us far afield into the murky world of contracts; and is > certainly a legal quagmire nearly the size of copyright. > > There is no contract in the purchase of the DVD(*); there is > no license > agreement on the DVD, there is no "seal" to break, no > licensed shrink-wrap > to open. There is no license agreement, but there _are_ restrictions. The ol' "for home viewing only" boilerplate. > > As a consumer, I have a common understanding of copyright law > that tells > me what purchase of a movie (VHS or DVD) means. In particular, I know > that I am not legally allowed to make a copy of it, or exhibit it in > a public setting. Fair use? I think that if I had a web page > I could put > a 1-2 min clip of the movie on it to illustrate part of a > larger statement. > But I could not say "Wow! Look at how well Dustin Hoffman did in > 'The Graduate'" and put the whole film out there. > > Okay, so if the DVD manufacturers started including a license > agreement > with their products, could they legitimately claim their product is > "licensed, not sold"? > I think they could claim that _now_ ... but the terms of the license currently being used are not what they are not what the MPAA are claiming they are. The current license restricts me from publicly showing the flick, but says nothing about media shifting -- which is an established "fair use" right. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 21:17:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA03056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:17:58 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA03053 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:17:57 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:23:46 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DCE@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:23:43 -0400 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 Richard Hartman: I think they could claim that _now_ ... but the terms of the license currently being used are not what they are not what the MPAA are claiming they are. The current license restricts me from publicly showing the flick, but says nothing about media shifting -- which is an established "fair use" right. -------------- It strikes me further that attempts to give away fair use rights by contract could constitute a contract of adhesion, especially in light of the amount of litigation required to have that right sanctioned by the Supreme Court. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 19 21:30:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA03221 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:30:00 -0400 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 VAA03218 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:29:59 -0400 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 VAA17595 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000619204334.00deece0@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:04:10 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Hearings in HTML In-Reply-To: <20000619192945.11585.qmail@web513.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 12:29 PM 6/19/00 -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: >--- "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" wrote: > > > > Argh. Just when I thought I'd get a break. Anyone up for diggin > > through all of this to find something useful? > >I read through several of them before they were html. If I recall >Sorkin (MPAA, Time Warner) mentioned our submission (from the >Copyright's Commons) and said basically that we were only speculating >about future evils that copyright holders could do, but that their >piracy problems are real today. > >I think Wendy mentioned that the Copyright Office is accepting >post-hearing comments. It'd be kind of fun to point out "who's full of >baloney" using their deposition testimony as the prime evidence. Post-hearing comments are due at 5 p.m. this Friday, June 23. I thought I'd try to pull together at least a brief response to Sorkin's objection that Copyright's Commons was merely "speculating" about the use-inhibiting effects of access controls, when all of the encrypted-content-providers have given so little assurance that they will respect fair use/first sale restrictions. I've read the written submissions but haven't yet read through the hearing transcripts. If anyone finds useful quotes for us either to support or to bash, please let me know on- or off-list. Thanks! --Wendy >Perhaps a group reply is a good use for the CVS repository that I have >just set-up on eon. > > > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, John Young wrote: > > > > > Craig Markwardt has converted to HTML the "DMCA Hearings by U.S. > > > Copyright Office on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention > > > of Technological Measures," held in May in D.C. and California. > > > > > > This index of the papers at: > > > > > > http://cryptome.org/dmca-hearings.html Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 01:12:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA04705 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:12:24 -0400 Received: from orange.fenimore.org (sf-du80.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA04700 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:12:05 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by orange.fenimore.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA04077 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:14:27 -0600 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:14:26 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface Message-ID: <20000619231426.A4010@orange.fenimore.org> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1BF6@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000526140839.A5201@thud.reric.net> <392EE1B3.56CF37C9@terasound.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <392EE1B3.56CF37C9@terasound.com>; from staempfli@terasound.com on Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:42:27PM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I don't remember seeing a mention of this article: The second reason that widespread copying is unlikely is that DVD movies are encoded in a way that makes the copies practically useless. The encoding scheme excludes critical color information that is added when DVDs are played but is missing if they are recorded. "DVD only looks good when you're playing it," Garrett explained. "If ^^ you record it, you get a generation loss. It's designed to look really ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ good when playing. It's not designed to be recorded." This is the same "SDI" (no, not Star Wars, Serial Digital Interface) mentioned in the New Scientist article below. Garrett is talking about *digital* outputs when he says there is generational loss. So what's up here? Is it a matter of being unable to recompress the SDI data to MPEG-2 without loss? Or something else? Paul Fenimore On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:42:27PM +0200, René Stämpfli wrote: > Hi, > this will keep the MPAA even more busy soon. The flood gates are > starting to open up. > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news_224031.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 01:22:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA04852 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:22:13 -0400 Received: from web111.yahoomail.com (web111.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.81]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA04833 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:21:03 -0400 Received: (qmail 9760 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Jun 2000 05:22:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000620052239.9759.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> Received: from [216.165.4.41] by web111.yahoomail.com; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:22:39 PDT Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:22:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tuyet A. Ngoc Tran" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Wired News : When DVD Is Too Good to Be Legal 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'm not sure if anyone in the group has seen this article yet. I've referenced the excerpt below. Also, I recently saw a DVD-disc by John Tavenner, a British composer. The box had a caption : All Regions - no restriction. Tuyet ============================================================ >From Wired News, available online at: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,37059,00.html When DVD Is Too Good to Be Legal by Leander Kahney 3:00 a.m. Jun. 19, 2000 PDT To Hollywood's alarm, a British company is selling modified DVD players that output pure digital signals. Unlike regular DVD players, which provide ho-hum quality analog pictures, Function Communications' modified DVD players output a stream of pure digital video. ------------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 01:51:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA05061 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:51:24 -0400 Received: from dial79.roadrunner.com (dial79.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.79] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA05058 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:51:21 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial79.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA04545 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:54:00 -0600 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:53:59 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Streambox, 1201(b), was: Dec'l Daphne Gronich, n.3 Message-ID: <20000619235359.A4448@localhost> References: <20000612124620.D560@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 01:22:13PM +0300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu As Sampo has noted below, the court found that a one-bit flag constituted a 1201(b) measure when taken in conjunction with an (a) measure. On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 01:22:13PM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > >copycontrol. If one can find a way to copy that simply ignores the > >existence of the technological measure, then there is no point to > >calling the measure a copy control. > > That would be logical if the Streambox (or not? about surpassing real's > copy forbid bits) case didn't suggest the contrary. I believe that was > precisely about ignoring a stupid little TPM. The same goes for SCMS, which > is /real/ easy to surpass. >From the findings of law, Realnetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc. No. C99-2070P: 8. In conjunction with the Secret Handshake, the Copy Switch is a "technological measure" that effectively protects the right of a copyright owner to control the unauthorized copying of its work. See 17 U.S.C. §1201(b)(2)(B) (measure "effectively protects" right of copyright holder if it "prevents, restricts or otherwise limits the exercise of a copyright owner"); 17 U.S.C. § 106(a) (granting copyright holder exclusive right to make copies of its work). To access a RealMedia file distributed by a RealServer, a user must use a RealPlayer. The RealPlayer reads the Copy Switch in the file. If the Copy Switch in the file is turned off, the RealPlayer will not permit the user to record a copy as the file is streamed. Thus, the Copy Switch may restrict others from exercising a copyright holders exclusive right to copy its work. Which looks to me to be an error. The court appears to have ignored the "normal operation" test found in (b)(2)(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. The court could only reach its conclusion about a one-bit flag if it takes the position that it is _necessary_ for Realnetworks to monopolize the player market for "realmedia". Other than taking a particular program to be the only mode of "ordinary" operation, there is no may to conclude that "ordinary operation" would "prevent[], restrict[], or otherwise limit the exercise of a right ..." This seems to badly confuse "ordinary" operation of one software player with "ordinary" operation of a measure. The ordinary course of operation test is relevant to (a)(3)(B) too. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 01:55:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA05195 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:55:44 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA05192 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:55:43 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA19005 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:57:39 -0500 Message-ID: <394F0404.7A3C07E@mninter.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:41:24 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes 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 Reading this has put me in a sour mood, so I'm sure you'll appreciate my brevity: MR. SIMON: 23 So does that mean that if, for some 24 reason I, as an alumni, do have initial lawful 25 access to that library on a wonderful Friday 26 afternoon in May, does that mean that I can go into PAGE 27 1 that library at four in the morning on Christmas Eve 2 as well? The fact that I got in once legally, does 3 that mean that I can get in again and again? 4 Obviously, it doesn't. It can't mean that. So Mr. Simon of the BSA suggests that once a consumer purchases a copyrighted work and brings it home, the copyright holder might decide not to let us access their work on Christmas? What benefit is this to the consumer? To the public? What if "It's a Wonderful Life" comes out on BSADVD, but in order to protect the franchise they don't let us watch it from January through October? Put simply, will a home user be capable of establishing a HOME LIBRARY with the DMCA? This entails use and access rights, my friends. I have no use for a book that may or may not allow me access, or that I keep in my house, but maybe can't afford to use this month. What happens to my home library? And I do not want to hear that I will not need one with _____-on-demand. I'm telling you: I will. Oh, yeah: 13 There's been a fair amount of discussion 14 of the evils of a metered world, of a pay-per-use 15 world. I find this baffling. A huge amount of 16 commercial activity in our economy, global economy, 17 is based on metered use. I rented a car at the 18 airport yesterday. I pay so many dollars for so 19 much time. If I want to keep it longer, I pay more. 20 There's nothing wrong with that concept. 21 Telephone service. I pick up the phone 22 to make a call, and I pay for the amount of time 23 that I use it. Swell. Page 17: 7 The goal of the copyright law is not to 8 promote use of works. It is in part to promote use 9 of works, but that's only one of its goals. The 10 goal of the copyright law is to promote creative 11 expression. The only logical conclusion to this position is that public "use" (now separated from access entirely... just a few years ago this would not have made any sense.) is subordinate to the creative expression of media conglomerates. The most effective way to promote creative expression is to make available the most other creative expression to the public. This means letting the public use/access/whatever the work. The DMCA, as the BSA frames it, makes fair use impossible except for those that can afford to license the DIVX-Silver version of use from the media owner with a TPM. The rest of us are stuck with pay-per-use, unstorable, unreuseable works. This does not jive with the public's best interest, and should not be allowed. Someone really needs to take these BSA "gentlemen" to task on their physical-property analogies, too. This breaking into X and stealing Y or reading Z crap is out of line. We're talking about knowledge, here, and the public interest wants more of it, not less. The public interest wants it outdoors, not locked behind a million doors. Page 28: 9 Okay, last point. You really have only 10 one determination to make, and that determination is 11 adverse effect. It's really a harm test. You have 12 to find harm. If you do not find harm, the inquiry 13 stops. And the burden of finding harm is pretty 14 high. The burden is for people to present to you 15 specific instances where it has occurred. No harm, 16 no action. I feel this needs to be directly addressed. Whether it be to say that pervasive pay-per-use and licensing of copyrighted works is inherently harmful and contrary to the purpose of copyright, or more specifically, address the abuses of CSS. Once TPMs becoming hurdles to access becomes pervasive, how will consumers get their hands on public domain works? And, critically, will consumers be forced to go to the copyright holder to ask for fair-use access? This should not be permitted. Copyright holders should not be allowed to hold a position between a consumer and fair use. They must demonstrate harm to their rights in court post hoc, not intervene propter hoc. I cannot stress this enough. Question: Can the librarian distinguish between pay-per-use and first-sale type items, perhaps, in the rulmaking? Exempting all first-sale type items might be a good start. Ugh. I can't read any more of this. My mind is spinning. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 02:04:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA05325 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:04:19 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA05322 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:04:17 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA19458 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:05:55 -0500 Message-ID: <394F05EF.23C0E9E3@mninter.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:49:35 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ALERT THE DEFENSE References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1BF6@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000526140839.A5201@thud.reric.net> <392EE1B3.56CF37C9@terasound.com> <20000619231426.A4010@orange.fenimore.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 DVDs have a second macrovision-type protection called colorstriping. OOH OOH-major news break. Read this PDF at Macrovision.com: http://www.macrovision.com/Analysis_CSS_Hack.pdf Especially the part where it says: "Macrovision and most content owners do not anticipate any serious market effect from the most recent "DeCSS" hack because of the fact that most consumers can do little more than store one movie title at a time on their PC, unless they want to make degraded MPEG-1 video CDs from the hacked DVD video..." Sounds like a major area for discovery to me. It would have been nice to have in fighting the injunction. Anyway. Read about colorstriping at: http://www.macrovision.com/dvd.pdf The information is brief, but at least a basic description is there. Chris (www.underwhelm.org/decss) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 02:36:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA06020 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:36:21 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA06017 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:36:20 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FWF003Z1X1JQP@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:16:45 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ALERT THE DEFENSE In-reply-to: <394F05EF.23C0E9E3@mninter.net> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FWF003Z2X1JQP@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 > DVDs have a second macrovision-type protection called colorstriping. > > OOH OOH-major news break. Read this PDF at Macrovision.com: > > http://www.macrovision.com/Analysis_CSS_Hack.pdf > > Especially the part where it says: > > "Macrovision and most content owners do not anticipate any serious > market effect from the most recent "DeCSS" hack because of the fact that > most consumers can do little more than store one movie title at a time > on their PC, unless they want to make degraded MPEG-1 video CDs from the > hacked DVD video..." > > Sounds like a major area for discovery to me. It would have been nice to > have in fighting the injunction. Oh my god this is *AMAZING*!! Kudos to Chris for having the twisted sense to look up what the macrovision people have to say about all of this! The MacroVision people could care less about the CSS folks! *They* want to be *the* reliable protection scheme -- *they* have a vested interest in showing that digital protection technologies don't work! We need to get the macrovision folks on our side. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 09:38:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA08387 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:38:10 -0400 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 JAA08384 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:38:08 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (gdsl217.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.254.217]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA28811 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 06:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394F72F6.A6B219FE@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:34:46 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ALERT THE DEFENSE References: <0FWF003Z2X1JQP@mta6.snfc21.pbi.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 Paul Hsieh wrote: > >The MacroVision people could care less about the CSS folks! *They* want to be > *the* reliable protection scheme -- *they* have a vested interest in showing that > digital protection technologies don't work! We need to get the macrovision folks > on our side. Before you get too excited, you might want to read this : http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4021.htm .This is Macrovision's congressional testimony inre: HR 2281 (which became the DMCA). They may not care about the CSS folks, but the CSS folks aren't the problem, they are the symptom. The DMCA is the problem, and Macrovision is all for it. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 09:46:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA08586 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:46:41 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA08583 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:46:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20000620134819.21433.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 06:48:19 PDT Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 06:48:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Streambox, 1201(b), was: Dec'l Daphne Gronich, n.3 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: > The court could only reach its conclusion about a one-bit flag if > it takes the position that it is _necessary_ for Realnetworks to > monopolize the player market for "realmedia". Their is nothing really wrong with them monopolizing this market though. If you want to compete with them, you just come up with another secure protocol and put the same 3rd party works in a copy-preventing delivery mechanism. You might have to compete with RealNetworks for exclusive contracts (as Microsoft probably is or will be doing). You go to far when you use market power to force consumers to take one product with another. If say, Microsoft bundled their media player with the OS, drove Real Networks out of buisiness, and then used this position to leverage both publishers and consumers, you'd have a good case for a monopoly claim. Oh wait, that's happening. I actually think Streambox is a lot more of what the DMCA should be about. If this was all the law did, I would have no problem. The crucial difference is that you haven't paid for a copy in a tangible form, so you are committing simple copyright infringement if you use a reverse engineered client to copy the works. The other difference is that RealNetworks doesn't have "market power" enough to force publishers or consumers to use their product. Microsoft is a different matter, but that's why they are being sued. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 11:20:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09462 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:20:23 -0400 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 LAA09459 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:20:18 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (gdsl217.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.254.217]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA05987 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394F8AE7.C351DEC3@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:16:55 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] Lessig article 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.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,16071,00.html -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 11:44:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09706 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:44:32 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA09703 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:44:29 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:47:12 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C64@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD player allows creation of perfect copies Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:47:11 -0700 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 Story at: http://www.wired.com/news_drop/palmpilot/story/0,1325,37059,00.html I think this has been mentioned before. The CSS licensing specifically prohibits implementing a "firewire" interface ... but does not prohibit digital outputs in general. I don't know if this is now the second non-firewire digital output I have heard of, or if this is the same machine I heard about in a story about a week or two back... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 11:59:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09891 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:59:45 -0400 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 LAA09888 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:59:44 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (gdsl217.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.254.217]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA08943 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394F9425.4EF52930@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:56:21 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD player allows creation of perfect copies References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C64@mail2.onetouch.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 Richard Hartman wrote: > Story at: > http://www.wired.com/news_drop/palmpilot/story/0,1325,37059,00.html > > I think this has been mentioned before. The CSS licensing specifically > prohibits implementing a "firewire" interface ... but does not prohibit > digital outputs in general. I don't know if this is now the second > non-firewire digital output I have heard of, or if this is the same > machine I heard about in a story about a week or two back... > > -- > It's the same one featured in New Scientist. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 12:24:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10115 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:24:31 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA10112 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:24:29 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26762 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:26:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:26:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Streambox, 1201(b), was: Dec'l Daphne Gronich, n.3 In-Reply-To: <20000620134819.21433.qmail@web515.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 I have to disagree. Someone with authorization from the copyright owner, or the copyright owner themelves should be able to circumvent access restrictions if necessary. However, barring the tools that even they would need for this prevents them from fully exercising their copyright. Think of what you do when locked out of your car. You, or someone helping you has to break in. But this is okay, because you have the authority to do so. I work in graphics, and I'm sure that if my files could get locked away from me frequently (and 'flat' files are a bit like this sometimes) and that I'd _have_ to be able to get back into them. Accidents happen but this law doesn't seem to realize that. I suppose that was an accident. ;) On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > The court could only reach its conclusion about a one-bit flag if > > it takes the position that it is _necessary_ for Realnetworks to > > monopolize the player market for "realmedia". > > Their is nothing really wrong with them monopolizing this market > though. If you want to compete with them, you just come up with another > secure protocol and put the same 3rd party works in a copy-preventing > delivery mechanism. You might have to compete with RealNetworks for > exclusive contracts (as Microsoft probably is or will be doing). > > You go to far when you use market power to force consumers to take one > product with another. If say, Microsoft bundled their media player with > the OS, drove Real Networks out of buisiness, and then used this > position to leverage both publishers and consumers, you'd have a good > case for a monopoly claim. Oh wait, that's happening. > > I actually think Streambox is a lot more of what the DMCA should be > about. If this was all the law did, I would have no problem. The > crucial difference is that you haven't paid for a copy in a tangible > form, so you are committing simple copyright infringement if you use a > reverse engineered client to copy the works. > > The other difference is that RealNetworks doesn't have "market power" > enough to force publishers or consumers to use their product. Microsoft > is a different matter, but that's why they are being sued. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com/ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 12:34:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10336 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:34:04 -0400 Received: from dial157.roadrunner.com (dial157.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.157] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA10325 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:33:56 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial157.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00725 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:36:28 -0600 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:36:27 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Streambox, 1201(b), was: Dec'l Daphne Gronich, n.3 Message-ID: <20000620103627.A524@localhost> References: <20000620134819.21433.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000620134819.21433.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 06:48:19AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 06:48:19AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > The court could only reach its conclusion about a one-bit flag if > > it takes the position that it is _necessary_ for Realnetworks to > > monopolize the player market for "realmedia". > > Their is nothing really wrong with them monopolizing this market > though. If you want to compete with them, you just come up with another > secure protocol and put the same 3rd party works in a copy-preventing > delivery mechanism. You might have to compete with RealNetworks for > exclusive contracts (as Microsoft probably is or will be doing). As you say, in principle a monopoly can be legal. I wanted to emphasize that the court is implying the necessity of a monopoly. I think there are three points here. 1. Only while realnetworks maintains a monopoly (illegal or not) on realmedia players does a flag constitute copy protection. Only if there is a single source for players, and all their players are coded correctly, is this "partial" copy control. That's quite different from saying that the monopoly is incidental to the technical measure. The copyright statute is being used to grant a monopoly on some communications and authentication protocols. Without the monopoly, there isn't a sensible way to say that the flag is "copy protection" because there is no longer a one-to-one mapping between technological measures and technological 'devices'. 2. There is not necessarily a problem by the standards of classic anti-trust, but Congressional power re: copyright is an affirmative grant of monopoly. The scope of the monopoly is clearly delimited as securing exclusive rights to authors. A monopoly to authors in players is not granted, nor does it seem plausible to me that third-party monopolies not directly related to a particular expressive work should be authorized. By equating a particular implementation of the realmedia player with the technological measure itself, this is what the court has done. 3. There is the issue that all of this stuff is published. One of the standard ways of determining if infringement has occured is to determine if access occurred and there is substantial similarity. Here, in sect. 1201(b), Congress is saying, _after_ granting access (approx: the supposed infringer has seen the work), it is possible to have a _technical_ measure which will prevent actual copying. Just for starters, that flies in the face of established infringement law. I think there is also an inherent contradiction here. It is possible to have mechanisms that control access to a descrambled work, that's the solution to the privacy problem. But _after_ access has been granted, there is no way to claim that "in the normal course of operation" one can prevent copying at that point. The law has causality wrong. Copying after access is the way the Universe works. > You go to far when you use market power to force consumers to take one > product with another. If say, Microsoft bundled their media player with > the OS, drove Real Networks out of buisiness, and then used this > position to leverage both publishers and consumers, you'd have a good > case for a monopoly claim. Oh wait, that's happening. > > I actually think Streambox is a lot more of what the DMCA should be > about. If this was all the law did, I would have no problem. The > crucial difference is that you haven't paid for a copy in a tangible > form, so you are committing simple copyright infringement if you use a > reverse engineered client to copy the works. Potentially, their _access_ control is ok by me. But the claim that a flag constitutes copy protection is absurd. My take on the "in normal course of operation" language is that you can't simply paint the cover of a book green to signify "copyable" or red for "not copyable" and then claim that the book cover is a technological measure. It isn't. Sure, the color of the cover might constitute authorization under section 106, but that is a different matter from 1201(b)(2)(B) because there is no "normal course of operation" language in 106. That's the way it should be because 1201 is concerned with technological measures. > The other difference is that RealNetworks doesn't have "market power" > enough to force publishers or consumers to use their product. Microsoft > is a different matter, but that's why they are being sued. My beef with 1201(a) is that authority might be retained after first sale. There may a problem anytime an access control measure is applied to a work embodied in a tangible copy after publication, but I think that is getting far afield from the monopoly / rights-control / normal-course-of-operation issues. My complaint about (b) is different. I'm saying that because 1201 is concerned with technical rights (106) control, rather than punishment after the fact, the law is unphysical. To the extent that some court warps its view of reality to patch-up the unfixable 1201(b); the resulting "partial" measures of rights control that simply rely on a flag rather than encryption, require a monopoly in the player market to do any thing at all. This is so because the player is what is "doing the thing"; the measure is doing nothing except triggering some code in the player. Note that I'm not saying that encryption-based rights control has any effect "in the normal course of operation", I'm saying those measures other than access control don't rely in monopoly for their (non-!) operation re: rights control. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 12:36:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10617 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:36:53 -0400 Received: from dial157.roadrunner.com (dial157.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.157] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA10614 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:36:50 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial157.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00763 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:39:26 -0600 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:39:25 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD player allows creation of perfect copies Message-ID: <20000620103925.A753@localhost> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C64@mail2.onetouch.com> <394F9425.4EF52930@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <394F9425.4EF52930@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:56:21AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:56:21AM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > Richard Hartman wrote: > > > Story at: > > http://www.wired.com/news_drop/palmpilot/story/0,1325,37059,00.html > > > > I think this has been mentioned before. The CSS licensing specifically > > prohibits implementing a "firewire" interface ... but does not prohibit > > digital outputs in general. I don't know if this is now the second > > non-firewire digital output I have heard of, or if this is the same > > machine I heard about in a story about a week or two back... > > > > -- > > > > It's the same one featured in New Scientist. It's definitely the same subject and the same guy. But in this article, the owner of the UK business claims that once converted to SDI out, one cannot make a new DVD from that data equal to the original. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 12:39:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10887 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:39:48 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA10868 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:39:47 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:41:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:41:58 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ALERT THE DEFENSE In-Reply-To: <394F72F6.A6B219FE@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 > http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4021.htm .This is Macrovision's congressional > testimony inre: HR 2281 (which became the DMCA). They may not care about the CSS > folks, but the CSS folks aren't the problem, they are the symptom. The DMCA is the > problem, and Macrovision is all for it. Macrovision is really tooting their own horn in that document. They also fail to recognize that ppl are building macrovision filters in their garage w/ parts from radio shack, that will defeat macrovision. Macrovision is riding the fense on the DeCSS issue, but clearly leaning to the DMCA. Showing their opinion of DeCSS, but then countering what they do could be a mess. Macrovision's technology needs to be attacked, in addition to the DMCA not clarifying fair use. Macrovision violates fair use, in that I cannot transfer my DVD movie to another format for viewing in a different location. Take for example, I travel a lot and have a RV that has a TV/VCR, but no DVD. Am I not allowed to put the DVD movie on a VHS tape to watch while on the road? Same goes for a laptop owner. If I don't have a DVD drive in my laptop, (or realize that playing a DVD sucks battery like no other), while flying, is it illegal for me to copy the necassary files from a DVD to the laptop's HDD to watch the film? Even converting it to a VCD would ease up battery consumption. MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 12:44:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10989 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:44:46 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA10986 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:44:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26843 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:46:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:46:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ALERT THE DEFENSE 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, 20 Jun 2000, matthew.r.pavlovich.1 wrote: > > http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4021.htm .This is Macrovision's congressional > > testimony inre: HR 2281 (which became the DMCA). They may not care about the CSS > > folks, but the CSS folks aren't the problem, they are the symptom. The DMCA is the > > problem, and Macrovision is all for it. > > Macrovision is really tooting their own horn in that document. They also > fail to recognize that ppl are building macrovision filters in their > garage w/ parts from radio shack, that will defeat macrovision. > Macrovision is riding the fense on the DeCSS issue, but clearly leaning to > the DMCA. Showing their opinion of DeCSS, but then countering what they > do could be a mess. > They're not just leaning towards the DMCA. Another wet-ink provision in 17 USC makes it illegal to sell non-grandfathered VCRs (and the like, iirc) that don't have the type of technology that macrovision holds patents on. There's a nice government granted monopoly for you (and a clear application of commerce laws where they don't belong, imho) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 12:49:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA11071 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:49:47 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA11068 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:49:46 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:51:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:51:58 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ALERT THE DEFENSE 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 BTW: Marty and them already know about the Macrovision doc, and are researching for more significance. MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 12:50:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA11163 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:50:40 -0400 Received: from bigbrother.net (root@w131.z208177180.chi-il.dsl.cnc.net [208.177.180.131]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA11158 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:50:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (sterno@localhost) by bigbrother.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13288 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:52:50 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:52:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Steve Stearns To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ALERT THE DEFENSE 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 > Macrovision's technology needs to be attacked, in addition to the DMCA > not clarifying fair use. Macrovision violates fair > use, in that I cannot transfer my DVD movie to another format for viewing > in a different location. Take for example, I travel a lot and have a RV > that has a TV/VCR, but no DVD. Am I not allowed to put the DVD movie on a > VHS tape to watch while on the road? Same goes for a laptop owner. If I > don't have a DVD drive in my laptop, (or realize that playing a DVD sucks > battery like no other), while flying, is it illegal for me to copy the > necassary files from a DVD to the laptop's HDD to watch the film? Even > converting it to a VCD would ease up battery consumption. Another issue with macrovision is that if you wanted to wire up your DVD player to play through your VCR, it will not work. I know somebody who had a TV/VCR combo and had to get a macrovision descrambler to even connect it to his TV. Oh, and recently macrovision has been waving around the DMCA on Ebay and Yahoo auctions. APEX made a DVD player that could turn off macrovision encoding which made it wonderful for people in my friend's position. If you try to sell one of these on Ebay or Yahoo auctions, Macrovision will have your auction pulled claiming that the DMCA makes that illegal. ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 12:54:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA11262 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:54:35 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA11259 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:54:34 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11990 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:56:45 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <394F9529.64687149@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:00:41 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] ALERT THE DEFENSE 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.house.gov/judiciary/4021.htm .This is Macrovision's congressional > testimony inre: HR 2281 (which became the DMCA). They may not care about the CSS > folks, but the CSS folks aren't the problem, they are the symptom. The DMCA is the > problem, and Macrovision is all for it. It should be pointed out to anyone who hadn't noticed, that section 1201(k) requires all analog videorecorders to conform to Macrovision's copy protection specifications. No surprise that Macrovision is all for the DMCA ... they got their own product line written right into the law. Neat trick. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 13:33:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA11681 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:33:10 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA11678 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:33:09 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA11895 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:35:07 -0500 Message-ID: <394FA736.EC53C5D1@mninter.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:17:42 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Alert The Defense References: <0FWF003Z2X1JQP@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <394F72F6.A6B219FE@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 Yeah, I know that macrovision has its own stake in the DMCA, and would never help the defense voluntarily. On the other hand, the PDF certainly implies that macrovision has had content providers intimate that they're really not worried. Further, simply submitting as evidence that even the copy-control industry is not concerned about the loss of CSS and their plain description of why they are not speaks directly to harm. These people know what they are talking about, and say exactly what we've been saying all along. Any conversations they've had with the copyright holders discussing this is just gravy. Maybe in sales pitches for Macrovisions own digital copy protection measures. Maybe in regular correspondence they have with technical people at the MPAA, CCA, etc. Didn't mean to give everyone a shock this morning, and sorry about the all caps subject line. :) Chris (exciteable) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 14:03:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA12038 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:03:50 -0400 Received: from hawaii.phillips.com (gate.phillips.com [205.177.58.10]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA12035 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:03:48 -0400 Received: from crete.corp.phillips.com by hawaii.phillips.com via smtpd (for eon.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.71]) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 18:06:00 UT Received: from Bryant (kipi-86 [192.168.173.86]) by crete.corp.phillips.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA24564 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:05:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00e701bfdae1$80e74480$56ada8c0@corp.phillips.com> From: "Bryant Frazer" To: References: <0FWF003Z2X1JQP@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> <394F72F6.A6B219FE@cdpage.com> <394FA736.EC53C5D1@mninter.net> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Alert The Defense Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:57:19 -0400 Organization: KIPI 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > On the other hand, the PDF certainly implies that macrovision has had > content providers intimate that they're really not worried. Check out http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/11/st.00.html Includes the following quote from a fellow whose name (Jim Cardwell) I don't recognize, but who is identified as a Warner Home Video spokesperson. "We expected the source code to be broken. We were surprised it wasn't broken earlier. We believe there is no economic incentive to hack this product. The cost of the blank is more expensive than the cost of the finished product, and the amount of time it takes to download is several hours. There's no real economic incentive for anyone to hack this product." -bf- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 14:54:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA12407 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:54:21 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA12404 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:54:20 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c06-071.015.popsite.net [64.24.77.71]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA28760 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000620115013.00b8d960@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:53:50 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Jurisline 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 If memory serves, some of you have been using Jurisline for free legal research. If so, smoke 'em while you got 'em because, at least in present form, Jurisline won't be around much longer. Jurisline.com to Remove Lexis Cases New York Law Journal The fledgling Web site Jurisline threw in the towel in its effort to make Lexis' database of case law and statutes available on the Internet for free. With separate lawsuits pending in state and federal court and an appeal of a central issue in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Jurisline unconditionally surrendered its key legal claims and agreed to take the Lexis database off its Web site by July 6. http://www.law.com/professionals/iplaw.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 15:57:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA13380 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:57:37 -0400 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 PAA13377 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:57:34 -0400 Received: from ip176.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.176]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 134UBQ-0000iO-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:59:41 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:53:46 -0400 Message-ID: References: <394F0404.7A3C07E@mninter.net> In-Reply-To: <394F0404.7A3C07E@mninter.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 PAA13378 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:41:24 -0500, Chris Moseng wrote: >Put simply, will a home user be capable of establishing a HOME LIBRARY >with the DMCA? This entails use and access rights, my friends. I have no >use for a book that may or may not allow me access, or that I keep in my >house, but maybe can't afford to use this month. > >What happens to my home library? And I do not want to hear that I will >not need one with _____-on-demand. I'm telling you: I will. I believe you will be allowed to keep a home library as long as it is limited to the permitted storage unit. (RePlay and TiVo come with.. uhh, 8 or 10 hours?) The IP groups recognize "time shifting" only. But they act as if you are only permitted to own one VHS tape. Companies like Pinnacle and ATI are challenging this model with PC-based recorders that will use whatever disk is available. Unfortunately Macrovision often inhibits output to VHS or analog tape. >Oh, yeah: > > 13 There's been a fair amount of discussion > 14 of the evils of a metered world, of a pay-per-use > 15 world. I find this baffling. A huge amount of > 16 commercial activity in our economy, global economy, > 17 is based on metered use. I rented a car at the > 18 airport yesterday. I pay so many dollars for so > 19 much time. If I want to keep it longer, I pay more. > 20 There's nothing wrong with that concept. > 21 Telephone service. I pick up the phone > 22 to make a call, and I pay for the amount of time > 23 that I use it. Last time I went to Hertz, I didn't purchase the car. If they want to sell a metered DVD, no problem--just don't charge list price. >Page 17: > 7 The goal of the copyright law is not to > 8 promote use of works. It is in part to promote use > 9 of works, but that's only one of its goals. The > 10 goal of the copyright law is to promote creative > 11 expression. But the goal of libraries has been to promote utilization. In the future, schools and libraries could lose the incentive to access their collections if use conflicts with staffing needs. (ie. don't show every student this material, or we might have to cut back on personnel...) >The DMCA, as the BSA frames it, makes fair use impossible except for >those that can afford to license the DIVX-Silver version of use from the >media owner with a TPM. The rest of us are stuck with pay-per-use, >unstorable, unreuseable works. This does not jive with the public's best >interest, and should not be allowed. You have to place this into the context for which it was designed: The 'Silver version' would rarely be paid for in dollars, but instead be comped to those who are deigned worthy of access. Plebes will be given trailers, ads, and come-ons. It enforces a digital divide which moves from the pipe itself to access. This is an inevitable fact that the Clinton administration has been particularly slow to pick up on. >Someone really needs to take these BSA "gentlemen" to task on their >physical-property analogies, too. This breaking into X and stealing Y or >reading Z crap is out of line. We're talking about knowledge, here, and >the public interest wants more of it, not less. The public interest >wants it outdoors, not locked behind a million doors. The BSA has been tilting at windmills for years and only has credibility among its own members. If the software industry followed BSA guidelines to the letter, their profits and losses would be in the millions instead of billions. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 16:05:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA13763 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:05:17 -0400 Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (sendmail@mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.3.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13760 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:05:16 -0400 Received: from ntserver.nilles-nilles.com ([169.207.176.194]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.9.1) id PAA28580 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:07:25 -0500 Received: by NTSERVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:09:47 -0500 Message-ID: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B6AE@NTSERVER> From: "S. Michael Patton" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Alert The Defense Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:09:44 -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 I read the article and noted that DVD's have some sort of image degradation built in. The article said that they do not have all the color information. Is this compatible with the MPAA arguments that DVD's are a perfect copy, a better copy than one could see using a video tape player? > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryant Frazer [mailto:bryant.frazer@kipi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 12:57 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Alert The Defense > > > > On the other hand, the PDF certainly implies that > macrovision has had > > content providers intimate that they're really not worried. > > Check out http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/11/st.00.html > > Includes the following quote from a fellow whose name (Jim > Cardwell) I don't > recognize, but who is identified as a Warner Home Video spokesperson. > > "We expected the source code to be broken. We were surprised it wasn't > broken earlier. We believe there is no economic incentive to hack this > product. The cost of the blank is more expensive than the cost of the > finished product, and the amount of time it takes to download > is several > hours. There's no real economic incentive for anyone to hack > this product." > > -bf- > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 16:11:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14099 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:11:56 -0400 Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (sendmail@mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.3.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14096 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:11:54 -0400 Received: from ntserver.nilles-nilles.com ([169.207.176.194]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.9.1) id PAA29718 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:14:05 -0500 Received: by NTSERVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:16:27 -0500 Message-ID: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B6AF@NTSERVER> From: "S. Michael Patton" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Streambox, 1201(b), was: Dec'l Daphne Gronich, n.3 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:16:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) 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 QAA14097 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu OK, so I send out my copyrighted book in ASCII format, together with an ASCII player (also known as a "text editor" .. heard of them?)that will not permit anyone to save my ASCII file anywhere. If someone uses a text editor to access my file they are bypassing my access control measures. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 12:54 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Streambox, 1201(b), was: Dec'l Daphne > Gronich, n.3 > > > As Sampo has noted below, the court found that a one-bit flag > constituted a 1201(b) measure when taken in conjunction with an > (a) measure. > 8. In conjunction with the Secret Handshake, the Copy Switch is a > "technological measure" that effectively protects the > right of a > copyright owner to control the unauthorized copying of > its work. > See 17 U.S.C. §1201(b)(2)(B) (measure "effectively protects" > right of copyright holder if it "prevents, restricts > or otherwise > limits the exercise of a copyright owner"); 17 U.S.C. § 106(a) > (granting copyright holder exclusive right to make > copies of its > work). To access a RealMedia file distributed by a > RealServer, a > user must use a RealPlayer. The RealPlayer reads the > Copy Switch > in the file. If the Copy Switch in the file is turned off, the > RealPlayer will not permit the user to record a copy > as the file > is streamed. Thus, the Copy Switch may restrict others from > exercising a copyright holders exclusive right to copy > its work. > > > Which looks to me to be an error. The court appears to have > ignored the "normal operation" test found in (b)(2)(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. > > The court could only reach its conclusion about a one-bit flag if > it takes the position that it is _necessary_ for Realnetworks to > monopolize the player market for "realmedia". Other than taking a > particular program to be the only mode of "ordinary" > operation, there is > no may to conclude that "ordinary operation" would > "prevent[], restrict[], > or otherwise limit the exercise of a right ..." > > This seems to badly confuse "ordinary" operation of one > software player > with "ordinary" operation of a measure. > > The ordinary course of operation test is relevant to (a)(3)(B) too. > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 17:29:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA16614 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:29:07 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA16611 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:29:06 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01560 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:31:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <394FD584.666590A9@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:35:17 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: E: [dvd-discuss] Streambox, 1201(b), was: Dec'l Daphne Gronich, n.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 > OK, so I send out my copyrighted book in ASCII format, together with an > ASCII player (also known as a "text editor" .. heard of them?)that will not > permit anyone to save my ASCII file anywhere. If someone uses a text editor > to access my file they are bypassing my access control measures. How about a record player and a record? Same thing! Yes. That's the problem with the law. It says, "Fair use is only legal if the publisher says it is", then says "this law doesn't affect fair use." The law is completely contradictory, both with the principles of copyright, and with itself. Discussing the DMCA is like trying to analyze a paradox. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 17:37:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA16756 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:37:15 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA16753 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:37:14 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:39:59 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C68@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD player allows creation of perfect copies Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:39:58 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 9:39 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD player allows creation of > perfect copies > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:56:21AM -0600, Dana Parker wrote: > > Richard Hartman wrote: > > > > > Story at: > > > > http://www.wired.com/news_drop/palmpilot/story/0,1325,37059,00.html > > > > > > I think this has been mentioned before. The CSS > licensing specifically > > > prohibits implementing a "firewire" interface ... but > does not prohibit > > > digital outputs in general. I don't know if this is now > the second > > > non-firewire digital output I have heard of, or if this > is the same > > > machine I heard about in a story about a week or two back... > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > It's the same one featured in New Scientist. > > It's definitely the same subject and the same guy. But in > this article, > the owner of the UK business claims that once converted to SDI out, > one cannot make a new DVD from that data equal to the original. > He would make an interesting expert witness to counter the MPAA claim of "perfect copies" ... ? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 17:41:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA16871 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:41:27 -0400 Received: from herald.cc.purdue.edu (herald.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.11.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA16868 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:41:26 -0400 Received: from localhost by herald.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:43:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:43:04 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew.r.pavlovich.1" X-Sender: mpav@herald.cc.purdue.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: E: [dvd-discuss] Streambox, 1201(b), was: Dec'l Daphne Gronich,n.3 In-Reply-To: <394FD584.666590A9@uic.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 > Discussing the DMCA is like trying to analyze a paradox. I've got a new .sig MRP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 19:16:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA17421 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:16:31 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA17418 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:16:30 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:19:16 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C69@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:19:14 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Moseng [mailto:moseng@mninter.net] > > MR. SIMON: > 23 So does that mean that if, for some > 24 reason I, as an alumni, do have initial lawful > 25 access to that library on a wonderful Friday > 26 afternoon in May, does that mean that I can go into > PAGE 27 > 1 that library at four in the morning on Christmas Eve > 2 as well? The fact that I got in once legally, does > 3 that mean that I can get in again and again? > 4 Obviously, it doesn't. It can't mean that. So who sold him the library? Our argument is that the access to the DVD content is granted with first sale ... nobody at Blockbuster told me that I was only renting the thing, right? > > 13 There's been a fair amount of discussion > 14 of the evils of a metered world, of a pay-per-use > 15 world. I find this baffling. A huge amount of > 16 commercial activity in our economy, global economy, > 17 is based on metered use. I rented a car at the > 18 airport yesterday. I pay so many dollars for so > 19 much time. If I want to keep it longer, I pay more. > 20 There's nothing wrong with that concept. > 21 Telephone service. I pick up the phone > 22 to make a call, and I pay for the amount of time > 23 that I use it. > Sure ... and if you want to charge me pay-per-view for the DVD, set up the system that allows that to be done. The current system does -not- carry any indication of metered usage of the DVD content. Oh ... and for the record, pay-per-view DVD usage -was- tried, and was killed in the marketplace. How many of you still have a DivX coaster or two? > > Page 17: > 7 The goal of the copyright law is not to > 8 promote use of works. It is in part to promote use > 9 of works, but that's only one of its goals. The > 10 goal of the copyright law is to promote creative > 11 expression. The goal of copyright law is to balance the rights of the creator against the rights of the users. > > Page 28: > 9 Okay, last point. You really have only > 10 one determination to make, and that determination is > 11 adverse effect. It's really a harm test. You have > 12 to find harm. If you do not find harm, the inquiry > 13 stops. And the burden of finding harm is pretty > 14 high. The burden is for people to present to you > 15 specific instances where it has occurred. No harm, > 16 no action. Why do you dislike this excerpt? I agree with this! But they have not shown harm, so ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 20:09:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA17905 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:09:04 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA17902 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:09:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28266 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:10:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:10:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C69@mail2.onetouch.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, 20 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: > > Page 28: > > 9 Okay, last point. You really have only > > 10 one determination to make, and that determination is > > 11 adverse effect. It's really a harm test. You have > > 12 to find harm. If you do not find harm, the inquiry > > 13 stops. And the burden of finding harm is pretty > > 14 high. The burden is for people to present to you > > 15 specific instances where it has occurred. No harm, > > 16 no action. > > Why do you dislike this excerpt? I agree with this! > But they have not shown harm, so ... Heh. You're not exactly helping our side. But it's ok, since he's being weasly and using our own types of language against us. What he's saying is: Unless anti-DMCA forces can show that the DMCA causes harm - and chilling effects, etc don't count - then the DMCA stands. ONLY if we can show that there has been harm caused by the existance of access controls can they be pulled. That is, while in the 2600 case the plantiffs have to show harm, he says that in the DMCA review, *WE* have to show harm. So unless we have hard proof that CSS harms us, which is virtually impossible the way that it's written (many things which reasonable people would think of as harm are permitted), access controls would stand insofar as the Librarian of Congress is concerned. I didn't see anything that Simon said that would be good for us; if he had his way we'd all probably have to rent words from the coiners for perpetuity. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 20 20:16:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA18060 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:16:32 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA18057 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:16:31 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 134YE6-0007zB-00; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:18:42 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:18:42 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Message-ID: <20000620171842.Q15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C69@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C69@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 04:19:14PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman writes: > > 13 There's been a fair amount of discussion > > 14 of the evils of a metered world, of a pay-per-use > > 15 world. I find this baffling. A huge amount of > > 16 commercial activity in our economy, global economy, > > 17 is based on metered use. I rented a car at the > > 18 airport yesterday. I pay so many dollars for so > > 19 much time. If I want to keep it longer, I pay more. > > 20 There's nothing wrong with that concept. > > 21 Telephone service. I pick up the phone > > 22 to make a call, and I pay for the amount of time > > 23 that I use it. > > > > Sure ... and if you want to charge me pay-per-view > for the DVD, set up the system that allows that to be done. > The current system does -not- carry any indication of metered > usage of the DVD content. The pay-per-view point is about the claim that culture, scholarship, or intellectual, academic, or political freedom would be hurt by losing first sale to pay-per-view. That's a long argument which some people are making in papers in various places. It's not just like "Divx is bad for consumers"; it's a much broader set of concerns. Start with "traditional copyright has a _relatively_ low harm to the free exchange of ideas, information, and culture -- as long as things don't go out of print"; continue to "pay-per-view takes away most of the rights that traditional copyright left with the public", and you've got a powerful but highly speculative argument. Still -- just for a start -- if something's only available in a pay-per-view version, how can you have a free public library? By putting a portion of the acquisitions budget into a "royalties fund" and keeping the interest handy to make a micropayment every time someone wants to examine the work? Libraries are deathly afraid of pay-per-view, and have been saying so, in no uncertain terms. > > Page 17: > > 7 The goal of the copyright law is not to > > 8 promote use of works. It is in part to promote use > > 9 of works, but that's only one of its goals. The > > 10 goal of the copyright law is to promote creative > > 11 expression. > > The goal of copyright law is to balance the rights of the > creator against the rights of the users. I think you are making a mistake -- this balancing attempt is a _technique_ of copyright law, not its goal. Copyright law does not presume that creators have these rights except so far as the public interest grants them. When people talk about "balance" in copyright too much, they might forget that copyright is a public subsidy. > > Page 28: > > 9 Okay, last point. You really have only > > 10 one determination to make, and that determination is > > 11 adverse effect. It's really a harm test. You have > > 12 to find harm. If you do not find harm, the inquiry > > 13 stops. And the burden of finding harm is pretty > > 14 high. The burden is for people to present to you > > 15 specific instances where it has occurred. No harm, > > 16 no action. > > Why do you dislike this excerpt? I agree with this! > But they have not shown harm, so ... You've got it backwards. He's saying - if you do not find harm _to the public_ from TPMs, then you _may not_ grant any exemptions under 1201. This is not like in the lawsuits where some people think it goes - if you do not find harm _to the studios_ from DeCSS, then you may not punish the defendants under 1201. Of course, some of us here would like to see exemptions granted even if we can't prove 1201 harms us (in the ways the hearings are considering it); and then the studios would like to see the defendants convicted even if they can't prove DeCSS harms them. :-) The question in each case is, in part, who should bear the burden of proof -- we claim circumvention is at least by default to be thought of as legal, the studios say it is at least by default to be considered illegal. Then each says -- well, you ca't _prove_ that our default would harm you, can you? It would help to have a nice explanation of why the copyright holders ought to have the burden of proof (if anticircumvention laws are to exist at all!) -- not under 1201 but in general. -- 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 Jun 20 20:52:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA19966 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:52:08 -0400 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 UAA19963 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:52:07 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (gdsl217.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.254.217]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA10350 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <395010EC.202C4117@cdpage.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:48:44 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C69@mail2.onetouch.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 Richard Hartman wrote: > Oh ... and for the record, pay-per-view DVD usage -was- > tried, and was killed in the marketplace. How many of > you still have a DivX coaster or two? It was Divx, not DivX. And they aren't coasters yet, they are still viewable until June 30, 2001. What killed Divx wasn't the marketplace, BTW; it was doing pretty well in the marketplace. What killed Divx was lack of studio and distributor support, among other things. Arguably, if they had not pulled the plug, they'd still have a certain segment of the market. To this day, there are films available on Divx that are not and may never be available on DVD. See http://www.the-doa.com > > > Page 28: > > 9 Okay, last point. You really have only > > 10 one determination to make, and that determination is > > 11 adverse effect. It's really a harm test. You have > > 12 to find harm. If you do not find harm, the inquiry > > 13 stops. And the burden of finding harm is pretty > > 14 high. The burden is for people to present to you > > 15 specific instances where it has occurred. No harm, > > 16 no action. > > Why do you dislike this excerpt? I agree with this! > But they have not shown harm, so ... No, what he's saying is that WE have to show the harm that DMCA has caused. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 00:13:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA22440 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:13:20 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA22437 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:13:18 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA15303 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:15:26 -0400 Message-ID: <3950412F.B10E3F6A@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:14:39 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C69@mail2.onetouch.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 > > Page 28: > > 9 Okay, last point. You really have only > > 10 one determination to make, and that determination is > > 11 adverse effect. It's really a harm test. You have > > 12 to find harm. If you do not find harm, the inquiry > > 13 stops. And the burden of finding harm is pretty > > 14 high. The burden is for people to present to you > > 15 specific instances where it has occurred. No harm, > > 16 no action. > > Why do you dislike this excerpt? I agree with this! > But they have not shown harm, so ... I think he has it backwards here. When 1st admenment rights are concerned, those that seek to abridge those rights must suffer the burden of proof, and a very heavy burden it is. One test I remember is 1st admenment rights may be restricted if there is harm to national security; moreover it must be immediate harm, not simply the possibility of harm; and of course the possibility of harming some silly corporations ability to make a bigger buck doesn't even register. Even if your little company is forced into bankruptcy and your family must walk the street sans CD's or any other multimedia devices. I say tough luck, Mr. BSA man. Don't mess with the First Amendment.. Oh, and of course, IANAL. -Jeff From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 01:50:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA24460 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:50:48 -0400 Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA24457 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:50:47 -0400 Received: from alaptop.hotwired.com ([12.78.116.113]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000621055238.VPLK1605.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@alaptop.hotwired.com> for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 05:52:38 +0000 Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000621014934.021d7f00@pop.webcom.com> X-Sender: y2kc@pop.webcom.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:50:17 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Wired News : When DVD Is Too Good to Be Legal In-Reply-To: <20000620052239.9759.qmail@web111.yahoomail.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 Informed sources tell me that a good number of sexually-explicit DVDs have a similar laissez-faire approach to region encoing. -Declan At 22:22 6/19/2000 -0700, Tuyet A. Ngoc Tran wrote: >I'm not sure if anyone in the group has seen this >article yet. I've referenced the excerpt below. Also, >I recently saw a DVD-disc by John Tavenner, a British >composer. The box had a caption : All Regions - no >restriction. > >Tuyet > >============================================================ > From Wired News, available online at: >http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,37059,00.html > >When DVD Is Too Good to Be Legal >by Leander Kahney > >3:00 a.m. Jun. 19, 2000 PDT >To Hollywood's alarm, a British company is selling >modified DVD players that output pure digital signals. > >Unlike regular DVD players, which provide ho-hum >quality analog pictures, Function Communications' >modified DVD players output a stream of pure digital >video. >------------- > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 02:44:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA25690 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:44:15 -0400 Received: from eperke.themail.com (root@eperke.themail.com [216.64.18.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA25687 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:44:14 -0400 From: mw@themail.com Received: from mail.TheMail.com ([216.64.2.25]) by eperke.themail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA32173 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:44:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mw@themail.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:44:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200006210644.BAA32173@eperke.themail.com> Received-From: mail.TheMail.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Wired News : When DVD Is Too Good to Be Legal X-Priority: 3 Authorized-User: mw@TheMail.com IP-Address: 209.255.236.212 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="___TheMail_67_Boundary___" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --___TheMail_67_Boundary___ Content-type: text/plain Perhaps a short sample or excerpt could help us win favor with the judge. :) -m > > > >Informed sources tell me that a good number of sexually-explicit DVDs have > >a similar laissez-faire approach to region encoing. > > > >-Declan > > > > > >At 22:22 6/19/2000 -0700, Tuyet A. Ngoc Tran wrote: > >>I'm not sure if anyone in the group has seen this > >>article yet. I've referenced the excerpt below. Also, > >>I recently saw a DVD-disc by John Tavenner, a British > >>composer. The box had a caption : All Regions - no > >>restriction. > >> > >>Tuyet > >> > >>============================================================ > >> From Wired News, available online at: > >>http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,37059,00.html > >> > >>When DVD Is Too Good to Be Legal > >>by Leander Kahney > >> > >>3:00 a.m. Jun. 19, 2000 PDT > >>To Hollywood's alarm, a British company is selling > >>modified DVD players that output pure digital signals. > >> > >>Unlike regular DVD players, which provide ho-hum > >>quality analog pictures, Function Communications' > >>modified DVD players output a stream of pure digital > >>video. > >>------------- > >> > >> > >>__________________________________________________ > >>Do You Yahoo!? > >>Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. > >>http://im.yahoo.com/ > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ Make A Buck Or Two @ TheMail.com - Free Internet Email Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=44883 --___TheMail_67_Boundary___-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 03:20:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA26016 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 03:20:45 -0400 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 DAA26013 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 03:20:44 -0400 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 AAA32246 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:20:34 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA25831; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:19:27 -0700 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: [dvd-discuss] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Date: 21 Jun 2000 00:18:19 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 26 Message-ID: <8ipq7r$p76$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Some writers have characterized CSS as "access control". But I'd like to ask whether it may be time to re-consider that viewpoint. Has anyone considered whether CSS may be best viewed, not as a means of controlling access to copyrighted works, but as a means of controlling manufacturers of DVD player devices? In other words, does CSS exist to constrain manufacturers rather than to constrain copyright-criminals? And, if it is indeed most accurate to view CSS as player control rather than access control, does that affect the DMCA claims on DeCSS? Perhaps one of the best ways to illustrate what I mean by "manufacturer control" is to quote from one of the documents from the DVD 4C entities: The protection comes from compliant devices responding appropriately to manage the content according to the [information carried with the content that indicates conditions constraining its use]. Such protection is realized only if there is some means, or "hook", to compel devices to be compliant. Encryption is that hook. This excerpt taken from "Content Protection System Architecture", dated Feb 17 2000, revision 0.81, p. 7, by Intel, IBM, Matsushita, and Toshiba. See http://www.dvdcca.org/4centity/data/tech/cpsa/cpsa081.pdf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 03:26:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA26302 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 03:26:44 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA26299 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 03:26:43 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA30824 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:28:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3950702B.CD6874FB@mninter.net> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:35:07 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking comments 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 written something I hope to submit to the Copyright office regarding their anti-circumvention rulemaking. I'd say it's at about 75% right now. I request the list review it if they have time, and suggest anything that might strengthen it. Specifically, I do not know much about the interplay between the rulemaking and the validity of the law itself. I also don't know what sort of reading my comment will be given because it is not in direct response to the hearings or previous comments. I think that this argument may be the strongest one, though, that will jive with the mandate that the LOC has been given (as I understand it).. it is very narrow. You can read my comment at http://www.underwhelm.org/decss/comments.txt http://www.underwhelm.org/decss/comments.pdf or http://www.underwhelm.org/decss/comments.wpd Thanks. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 04:13:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA26944 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:13:20 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA26941 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:13:15 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 134ffQ-0000Kp-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:15:24 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:15:24 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Devil's advocate on antitrust: ATM networks Message-ID: <20000621011524.U15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've got an analogy to suggest the DVD licensing regime, including CSS, is probably legal: ATM networks. (This is in the sense of "automatic teller machine networks", not "asynchronous transfer mode networks".) Industry arrangements result in a world in which one can use a Wells Fargo ATM card in a Bank of America ATM, and vice versa. There are several regional and national ATM networks to which ATM card issuers and AM operators may subscribe (e.g. Cirrus and STAR). If you want to use a machine, the machine has to subscribe to a network that your card-issuing bank is a member of. This is rarely a problem right now, but when ATMs were newer, coverage was less well-established. (I did notice that the ATM networks in Wisconsin, California, and Massachusetts are not quite the same.) There are many analogies between ATM network operators and copy protection system administrators (or other industry groups which administer standards including copy protection). Because of a wrist injury, I'm not going to try to give all of these analogies at length. Let me just mention a few. ATM networks co-ordinate the activities of businesses in several different markets. They provide technical standards and security standards and dictate certain practices through contracts with the organizations that deal with them. (Those organizations include hardware manufacturers, service providers, and others.) These businesses would like to be able to deal with one another and to have their equipment interoperate securely with the equipment of other legitimate financial institutions. To participate in an ATM network, you must be a company; you must sign an NDA and a license and pay fees; you must follow the ATM network's standards and policies. These are meant to protect the ATM network's other subscribers, including those who do business in very different markets from your own. The general public is not allowed direct access to the system you license, or to its technical details, let alone to the keys which secure it. They use it, sure -- through some business relationship with you or another company, which must be sure to enforce all the ATM network's policies and is also responsible for taking some steps to be sure that consumers do, too. People who show too much interest in how the ATM network operates, or in how to build equipment to interoperate with it without a license, are usually thought of as potential criminals. Most people think of the ATM networks as necessary to provide the convenience and minimal security that consumers have come to expect from ATMs. ATMs use crypto, sometimes very weak symmetric ciphers. :-) -- 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 Jun 21 05:25:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA27869 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 05:25:51 -0400 Received: from smarthost.microsoft.com (smarthost.microsoft.com [131.107.3.106]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA27866 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 05:25:49 -0400 Received: from ajimtayvaldo (A-JIMTAY-VALDO [172.30.47.135]) by smarthost.microsoft.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2651.58) id N23BK5NZ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:27:27 -0700 From: "Jim Taylor" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:27:20 -0700 Message-ID: <002001bfdb62$e6e7eba0$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000619231426.A4010@orange.fenimore.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Is it a matter of being unable to recompress the >SDI data to MPEG-2 without loss? Right -- the reason there's loss with SDI is because the MPEG-2 data has been decompressed to full-bandwidth video. Technically there is an "emissions loss," but not a generational loss, since the SDI interface provides a digital signal that can be repeatedly copied with no loss. If it's re-encoded to MPEG-2, then there's an additional coding loss. However, with a good encoder most people won't be able to tell the difference from the original. By the way, the CSS license prohibits digital video output of any kind (other than RGB output to a computer monitor). It mentions IEEE 1394 (FireWire), but is not limited to that. A manufacturer that released a player with SDI output would be in violation of the license. But since Garrett never signed the CSS license, he's free to create and sell modified players. Whether he has violated DMCA is a different question. -- Jim Taylor Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Paul Fenimore Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 10:14 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface I don't remember seeing a mention of this article: The second reason that widespread copying is unlikely is that DVD movies are encoded in a way that makes the copies practically useless. The encoding scheme excludes critical color information that is added when DVDs are played but is missing if they are recorded. "DVD only looks good when you're playing it," Garrett explained. "If ^^ you record it, you get a generation loss. It's designed to look really ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ good when playing. It's not designed to be recorded." This is the same "SDI" (no, not Star Wars, Serial Digital Interface) mentioned in the New Scientist article below. Garrett is talking about *digital* outputs when he says there is generational loss. So what's up here? Is it a matter of being unable to recompress the SDI data to MPEG-2 without loss? Or something else? Paul Fenimore On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:42:27PM +0200, René Stämpfli wrote: > Hi, > this will keep the MPAA even more busy soon. The flood gates are > starting to open up. > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news_224031.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 05:26:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA27949 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 05:26:40 -0400 Received: from smarthost.microsoft.com (smarthost.microsoft.com [131.107.3.106]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA27943 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 05:26:39 -0400 Received: from ajimtayvaldo (A-JIMTAY-VALDO [172.30.47.135]) by smarthost.microsoft.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2651.58) id N23BK533; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:28:23 -0700 From: "Jim Taylor" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Alert The Defense Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:28:15 -0700 Message-ID: <002101bfdb63$07d4e020$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> 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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B6AE@NTSERVER> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu DVD's do not have "image degradation" built in. Macrovision (which is built into DVD players) modifies the analog output signal in a way that makes VCRs unable to create a viewable copy. Macrovision can be circumvented with circuitry that regenerates the color signal. In this case an analog tape recording will have generational loss, unlike a digital copy. -- Jim Taylor Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of S. Michael Patton Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1:10 PM To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Alert The Defense I read the article and noted that DVD's have some sort of image degradation built in. The article said that they do not have all the color information. Is this compatible with the MPAA arguments that DVD's are a perfect copy, a better copy than one could see using a video tape player? > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryant Frazer [mailto:bryant.frazer@kipi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 12:57 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Alert The Defense > > > > On the other hand, the PDF certainly implies that > macrovision has had > > content providers intimate that they're really not worried. > > Check out http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/11/st.00.html > > Includes the following quote from a fellow whose name (Jim > Cardwell) I don't > recognize, but who is identified as a Warner Home Video spokesperson. > > "We expected the source code to be broken. We were surprised it wasn't > broken earlier. We believe there is no economic incentive to hack this > product. The cost of the blank is more expensive than the cost of the > finished product, and the amount of time it takes to download > is several > hours. There's no real economic incentive for anyone to hack > this product." > > -bf- > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 05:33:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA28050 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 05:33:01 -0400 Received: from smarthost.microsoft.com (smarthost.microsoft.com [131.107.3.106]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA28047 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 05:33:00 -0400 Received: from ajimtayvaldo (A-JIMTAY-VALDO [172.30.47.135]) by smarthost.microsoft.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2651.58) id N23BK5T3; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:34:43 -0700 From: "Jim Taylor" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:34:36 -0700 Message-ID: <002201bfdb63$ea93e730$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <394C85A1.70CFC284@mninter.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mac G3's and G4's use digital video overlay in the graphics cards just like Windows PCs. In both cases, whether you can take a screenshot or not depends on how the decoder passes data off to the video hardware. Motion compensation usually makes screenshots harder, but they can be done in Windows as well as Mac OS. You'll discover that using a standard screenshot utility on a Mac will usually give you a pink screen, just as with Windows. Since the Apple player has the screenshot feature, it can decode a frame into systememory. -- Jim Taylor Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Chris Moseng Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 1:18 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match Danny Silverman wrote: > the point that I was making is that the current software that > doesn't allow you to take screenshots on the PC side probably acts > that way simply because Windows screenshots are not native to the OS > and the video being displayed is piped from the decoder chip on the > graphics card directly to the video buffer, or something like that, Basically this is correct. In the case of the Dxr2 the MPEG 2 data is positioned on screen by an overlay mechanism. The software tells the graphics card to display a purple window and the Dxr2 takes the output of the graphics card and puts a movie where the purple window was. Just like a public-access cable bluescreen effect. Most other hardware decoders operate on a similar principle, but may take the video data before it is rendered to analog RGB from an internal bus. Thus, dumping the screen buffer of the video card to file will not capture the movie because it is not there. > bypassing the OS. I'm really not sure about this, but I assume the > reason you can take screenshots on Mac DVD player is because 1) it > is software based and 2) apple's screen capture command is built > into the OS. That was my assumption, too. > I doubt this is an MPAA-imposed limitation. It would > be interesting to test this on other software-decode DVD players, > but I don't know of any on the PC side. I didn't mean that allowing screen captures would specifically violate a clause in the CSS license, but I guess I made it sound that way. I meant, more generally, that the practice of making screen grabs of a DVD movie would likely be considerd an unauthorized use/access by the plaintiffs, given their testimony, and that is enough to get yourself into "deep legal water" (my new favorite phrase, thanks Mr. Valenti). As such, I wouldn't be surprised that the MPAA has "requested" that Apple look into preventing this functionality in future releases in order to strengthen their access-control measures. After all, if it's permissible to go and grab video stills right off the bus to make screen grabs, how is that different from nabbing the whole thing after decryption? There is no difference. Both, the plaintiffs would assert, are unlawful circumvention. A specious assertion, but asserted all the same.** > I would say don't be too over-righteous. I hate the MPAA et. al. > as much as the rest of you, but we can't spread lies and FUD, or else > we are no better than them. I'm just extrapolating plaintiff's positions to probable outcomes. ------ **And this is my (our?) major issue with the MPAA access license as it exists (which is not at all, execpt through my understanding of their expectations of the users through their depositions). Basically, they say that authorized access is whatever suits their fancy, but its basic scope is "anything your DVD player is naturally designed to do, in isolation from all third-party software or hardware." So, even if you accessed the contents of the DVD legitimately through a standard function of the DVD ("Play."), if you then take the results of that function and leverage it to make use of the material (screen capture, strip macrovision, pipe to video capture card), the plaintiffs will claim unauthorized access. In other words, they are defining authorization not through a specific license or set of restrictions and permissions, but by what use you ultimatly make of the accessed material. This, as I see it, is why they have been unable to tell us when a person is authorized to access a DVD. The honest answer really is "it depends." They will decide whether you have violated to right to access dependant on what you did with the accessed material (stored it, copied it, moved it, re-rendered it, sent it to /dev/null, wore it as a party hat, used the output to generate random numbers, printed it out and walpapered your apartment with it...) Sorry. A lot of this is strictly list-redundant, and some just incoherent. I've had an odd day. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 08:49:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA29113 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:49:38 -0400 Received: from 242688hfc63.tampabay.rr.com (qmailr@dt041n54.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.164.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA29110 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:49:37 -0400 Received: (qmail 25135 invoked by uid 502); 21 Jun 2000 12:54:32 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:54:32 -0400 From: greslin@linuxpower.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Devil's advocate on antitrust: ATM networks Message-ID: <20000621085432.R12468@linuxpower.org> References: <20000621011524.U15588@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <20000621011524.U15588@zork.net>; from Seth David Schoen on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 01:15:24AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 01:15:24AM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > I've got an analogy to suggest the DVD licensing regime, including > CSS, is probably legal: ATM networks. > > (This is in the sense of "automatic teller machine networks", not > "asynchronous transfer mode networks".) > > Industry arrangements result in a world in which one can use a Wells > Fargo ATM card in a Bank of America ATM, and vice versa. There are > several regional and national ATM networks to which ATM card issuers > and AM operators may subscribe (e.g. Cirrus and STAR). If you want to > use a machine, the machine has to subscribe to a network that your > card-issuing bank is a member of. > > [snipped] But how much of the ATM system is based on copyright law? What you're describing here sounds mainly like contractual agreements and standards. I'd be interested in knowing whether a simple contractual agreement can transfer the power to grant copyright authorization. -- Rob Warren (email) greslin@linuxpower.org (homepage) www.iag.net/~aleris "It's kind of sad that you can't even give your most well-behaved pet the power of flight without them going insane with power." - Boardy, Superosity (www.superosity.com) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 09:17:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA30323 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:17:44 -0400 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 JAA30320 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:17:42 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 134kOl-0002Yn-00 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:18:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:18:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Devil's advocate on antitrust: ATM networks In-Reply-To: <20000621011524.U15588@zork.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, 21 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > I've got an analogy to suggest the DVD licensing regime, including > CSS, is probably legal: ATM networks. However, ATM access is a "service" provided to the card-holding users. So really this is the same thing as the MPAA's "satillite signal" piracy argument. The difference being that the user purchases a DVD, whereas a user would only use an ATM or a TV satillite network. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:27:05 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 134kZC-0000H3-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:29:18 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 134kZE-0002Nq-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:29:20 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:29:20 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Devil's advocate on antitrust: ATM networks Message-ID: <20000621152920.A8887@inka.de> References: <20000621011524.U15588@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 08:18:31AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 08:18:31AM -0500, Tim Neu wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > I've got an analogy to suggest the DVD licensing regime, including > > CSS, is probably legal: ATM networks. > > However, ATM access is a "service" provided to the card-holding > users. So really this is the same thing as the MPAA's "satillite > signal" piracy argument. I wold add that if thee is an analogy here, it's the DVDs are to DVD players what cash is to ATMs. Anyone can build a machine that spits out wads of notes in response to a card/PIN combination, however connecting that machine to a network of others requires the consent of the owners of those other machines. That consent may com ewith strings attached. However DVD players (unlike DivX players) are not networked with anything, so the analogy claimed by the article falls apart. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 09:31:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA30677 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:31:12 -0400 Received: from hawaii.phillips.com (gate.phillips.com [205.177.58.10]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA30674 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:31:10 -0400 Received: from crete.corp.phillips.com by hawaii.phillips.com via smtpd (for eon.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.71]) with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 13:33:24 UT Received: from Bryant (kipi-86 [192.168.173.86]) by crete.corp.phillips.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA11831 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009c01bfdb84$8b8cf4e0$56ada8c0@corp.phillips.com> From: "Bryant Frazer" To: References: <4.3.0.20000621014934.021d7f00@pop.webcom.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Wired News : When DVD Is Too Good to Be Legal Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:24:05 -0400 Organization: KIPI 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Quite a few of Criterion's titles are all-region, or at least multi-region. They got into trouble with the Japanese license holder over SEVEN SAMURAI, which I believe they reissued as a region 1 title to help discourage imports into the movie's home country -- removable subtitles make this a more attractive proposition than in the days of VHS and laserdisc. I'm not sure about their Hollywood studio titles, however. (Criterion is sort of a boutique publisher that releases super-deluxe editions of selected titles.) -bf- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Declan McCullagh" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Wired News : When DVD Is Too Good to Be Legal > Informed sources tell me that a good number of sexually-explicit DVDs have > a similar laissez-faire approach to region encoing. > > -Declan > > > At 22:22 6/19/2000 -0700, Tuyet A. Ngoc Tran wrote: > >I'm not sure if anyone in the group has seen this > >article yet. I've referenced the excerpt below. Also, > >I recently saw a DVD-disc by John Tavenner, a British > >composer. The box had a caption : All Regions - no > >restriction. > > > >Tuyet > > > >============================================================ > > From Wired News, available online at: > >http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,37059,00.html > > > >When DVD Is Too Good to Be Legal > >by Leander Kahney > > > >3:00 a.m. Jun. 19, 2000 PDT > >To Hollywood's alarm, a British company is selling > >modified DVD players that output pure digital signals. > > > >Unlike regular DVD players, which provide ho-hum > >quality analog pictures, Function Communications' > >modified DVD players output a stream of pure digital > >video. > >------------- > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. > >http://im.yahoo.com/ > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 09:55:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA31124 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:55:36 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA31121 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:55:35 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA08969 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:57:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:57:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Devil's advocate on antitrust: ATM networks In-Reply-To: <20000621011524.U15588@zork.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 06/21/00 at 01:15, 'twas brillig and Seth David Schoen scrobe: > > I've got an analogy to suggest the DVD licensing regime, including > CSS, is probably legal: ATM networks. > > (This is in the sense of "automatic teller machine networks", not > "asynchronous transfer mode networks".) [...] > > There are many analogies between ATM network operators and copy > protection system administrators (or other industry groups which > administer standards including copy protection). Because of a wrist > injury, I'm not going to try to give all of these analogies at length. [...] While I see your point, I think there's at least one crucial difference: my DVD's do *not* say something analogous to the following: "This card is the property of the credit union and cardholder agrees to use it in a manner specified from time to time by the credit union and to surrender it immediately upon demand. If found, this card should be returned to credit union named on reverse side." I had to sign a license agreement -- which the bank most assuredly has on file -- in order to get this. Note also that this agreement seems to contain language that provides for the ability of the issuer to change the terms of usage -- the credit union can "from time to time" specify the manner in which it is to be used, and can also demand it back if they decide I'm not using it correctly. I saw no such terms within the bill of sale for the last DVD I purchased, nor was there any evidence of language to that effect anywhere within the documentation or sale terms for my DVD drive, decoder, and accompanying software. Ole PS. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of asynchronous networks whenever someone mentions ATM problems. :-) -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 10:08:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31486 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:08:12 -0400 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31483 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:08:10 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniihn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.74.55]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA14824 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006211410.KAA14824@blount.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:09:11 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths In-Reply-To: <009c01bfdb84$8b8cf4e0$56ada8c0@corp.phillips.com> References: <4.3.0.20000621014934.021d7f00@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 Jack's PR machine has got a ficitonal Jack writing a thundering Op-Ed in the New York Times today lambasting "copyright thieves" and "Internet marauders" who threaten the privacy of Americans with burglar technology, imperil the economic health of leading exporters of American creatitvity, and may well lead to the death of creative artists. A vulgar emulation of Judge Kaplan's rationale for the preliminary injunction. Jack appeals to Congress to urgently get draconian -- while still protecting First Amendment rights. "Do you want digital thieves to have the key to America's front doors?" This is almost exactly the wording of Edelman's prepared press release for Jack and MPAA handed out after immediately after the January hearing -- along with an actual Medeco key. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 10:16:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31603 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:16:24 -0400 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 KAA31600 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:16:23 -0400 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 KAA05763 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:18:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000621100511.0189a400@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:18:37 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: [dvd-discuss] Valenti's at it again 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 In an NYT op-ed this time: Broadband "plunderers," "pilfering zealots," "casual thieves," and "Internet marauders" will be the death of Hollywood (but they don't seem to be using DeCSS on the movies "now in theaters"). There's No Free Hollywood By Jack Valenti WASHINGTON -- Musicians like Metallica and Dr. Dre are furious at the casual thieves whose hard drives bulge with music snatched free over the Internet, thanks to software designed specifically to make stealing easy. So far, the slow transmission of graphic images has kept the problem confined mainly to audio. But movies are next in line, and their turn won't be long in coming. [...] A number of new movies, the ones now in theaters, have already been put on the Internet by pilfering zealots eager to enfold films in the same embrace now choking the music world, even though few computer users yet have ways to download them. Neither I nor anyone else in the movie industry chooses to rail against technology. Every company I know about is busily spending millions trying to develop business models that will have rapport with the Internet. But what the nation, particularly the Congress and the courts, must confront is how to protect people's privacy, while ensuring that creative artists and distributors can transport movies and music without their valuable works being burglarized. Copyright protects not just the financial interest of people who create artistic or intellectual property, but the very existence of creative work. [... and the key analogies just get worse:] The Internet marauders argue that copyright is old-fashioned, a decaying relic of a non-Internet world. But suppose some genius invented a magic key that could open the front door of every home in America and wanted to make the keys available to everyone under a canopy sign that read, "It's a new world -- take what you want." Wouldn't it be the responsibility of our society to try to control the use of that key? Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 10:19:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31671 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:19:24 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31667 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:19:22 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 134lNn-0003eV-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:21:35 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 134lNp-0003tL-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:21:37 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:21:37 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti's at it again Message-ID: <20000621162137.C8887@inka.de> References: <4.2.2.20000621100511.0189a400@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000621100511.0189a400@law.harvard.edu>; from wendy@seltzer.com on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 10:18:37AM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 10:18:37AM -0400, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > In an NYT op-ed this time: > > Broadband "plunderers," "pilfering zealots," "casual thieves," and > "Internet marauders" will be the death of Hollywood (but they don't seem to > be using DeCSS on the movies "now in theaters"). ...the same New York Times that's been linking to 2600's mirror list. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 10:43:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31877 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:43:27 -0400 Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (sendmail@mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.3.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31873 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:43:25 -0400 Received: from ntserver.nilles-nilles.com ([169.207.176.194]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.9.1) id JAA01527 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:45:36 -0500 Received: by NTSERVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:47:59 -0500 Message-ID: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B6B5@NTSERVER> From: "S. Michael Patton" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:47:53 -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 Ladies and Gentlemen, we are on the defensive. We must start considering the offensive. I would like to discuss a wonderful test case, in private, that I believe would flesh out the law in favor of traditional copyright. I do not wish to give the details here in plain text, since the case I propose can be easily avoided by some relatively simple precautions on the part of those who strongly favor an expansive interpretation of the DMCA. If there are any lawyers that are interested, please email me back. If there is someone who can provide us with a simple password-protected news group on a web site, I would appreciate that as well (or if there is a free website that will let me create a password protected newsgroup that would be wonderful!) Every great struggle to change the law, whether civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, abortion rights or the like has involved the creation of carefully tailored test cases (Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, etc.) that were designed from the ground up, years in advance, in order to create the perfect set of facts and law. It is cases like this that we propose to begin developing. We cannot stay on the defensive. There are too many facts against us in the current rash of DMCA cases. We have to move to the offense. Please respond if you are interested in hearing more or can help us create a secure channel of communication. > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 6:19 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Moseng [mailto:moseng@mninter.net] > > > > MR. SIMON: > > 23 So does that mean that if, for some > > 24 reason I, as an alumni, do have initial lawful > > 25 access to that library on a wonderful Friday > > 26 afternoon in May, does that mean that I can go into > > PAGE 27 > > 1 that library at four in the morning on Christmas Eve > > 2 as well? The fact that I got in once legally, does > > 3 that mean that I can get in again and again? > > 4 Obviously, it doesn't. It can't mean that. > > So who sold him the library? Our argument is that the access > to the DVD content is granted with first sale ... nobody at > Blockbuster told me that I was only renting the thing, right? > > > > > 13 There's been a fair amount of discussion > > 14 of the evils of a metered world, of a pay-per-use > > 15 world. I find this baffling. A huge amount of > > 16 commercial activity in our economy, global economy, > > 17 is based on metered use. I rented a car at the > > 18 airport yesterday. I pay so many dollars for so > > 19 much time. If I want to keep it longer, I pay more. > > 20 There's nothing wrong with that concept. > > 21 Telephone service. I pick up the phone > > 22 to make a call, and I pay for the amount of time > > 23 that I use it. > > > > Sure ... and if you want to charge me pay-per-view > for the DVD, set up the system that allows that to be done. > The current system does -not- carry any indication of metered > usage of the DVD content. > > Oh ... and for the record, pay-per-view DVD usage -was- > tried, and was killed in the marketplace. How many of > you still have a DivX coaster or two? > > > > > > Page 17: > > 7 The goal of the copyright law is not to > > 8 promote use of works. It is in part to promote use > > 9 of works, but that's only one of its goals. The > > 10 goal of the copyright law is to promote creative > > 11 expression. > > The goal of copyright law is to balance the rights of the > creator against the rights of the users. > > > > > Page 28: > > 9 Okay, last point. You really have only > > 10 one determination to make, and that determination is > > 11 adverse effect. It's really a harm test. You have > > 12 to find harm. If you do not find harm, the inquiry > > 13 stops. And the burden of finding harm is pretty > > 14 high. The burden is for people to present to you > > 15 specific instances where it has occurred. No harm, > > 16 no action. > > Why do you dislike this excerpt? I agree with this! > But they have not shown harm, so ... > > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 10:47:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31975 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:47:33 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31971 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:47:29 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA28260 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:49:28 -0500 Message-ID: <3950D704.10A490A0@mninter.net> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:53:56 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (recently) References: <4.3.0.20000621014934.021d7f00@pop.webcom.com> <200006211410.KAA14824@blount.mail.mindspring.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 We should craft a letter to the editor or dissenting op-ed piece, perhaps comparing statements in the piece with things he claimed not to know or understand in his deposition. Of course, it has been established that the Times runs Op-Ed pieces for money, and then will not print counter arguments unless they are for money, too. http://www.brillscontent.com/columns/blur_0599.html Then again, I don't get the Times, so what do I know? Chris (cynical) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 10:59:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA32420 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:59:57 -0400 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 KAA32417 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:59:56 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 134m12-0004e5-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:02:08 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:02:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (recently) In-Reply-To: <3950D704.10A490A0@mninter.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, 21 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: > We should craft a letter to the editor or dissenting op-ed piece, > perhaps comparing statements in the piece with things he claimed not to > know or understand in his deposition. None of these regurgitations are targeted specificly at the DeCSS defense, but seem to aplly better to the somewhat more socially irresponsible "pirates." It is hard to attack this op-ed from an anti DMCA point of view, in this respect it is a rather clever propagande piece in a larger smear and FUD campaign. 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 Jun 21 11:23:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00462 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:23:02 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA00458 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:22:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20000621152442.6962.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:24:42 PDT Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:24:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? 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 --- "David A. Wagner" wrote: > Some writers have characterized CSS as "access control". But I'd > like to ask whether it may be time to re-consider that viewpoint. The Copyright Commons comment we submitted to the Copyright Office focussed on the meaning of "access". I actually think this is a strong argument because if multiple reasonable meaning fit with the statute, a court should select the meaning that avoids Constitutional questions. The key idea is to note, that 1201 doesn't proscribe all decryption -- just that used in technological "access control" measures. We've tried a couple times to differentiate "access controls" from "use controls". I suppose there are also "copy protection controls", but circumventing these is covered by 1201(b) and allows a fair use defence. Basically, an access control measure should assure that access only occurs if payment occurs. When a copy of the encrypted work is sold, the scenario is covered by traditional copyright law and there really isn't anything new going on. Encryption used in this scenario is not used to control access, but for either use control or copy protection control. Some TPM's for "use control" must not be covered by the statue in light of the statute's 1201(c)(1) and the non-statutorial Constitutional origin of fair use. I would argue that this holds even if the same measures are used for access controls, but again this is not at play in the traditional model -- selling media with copies of the work. > Perhaps one of the best ways to illustrate what I mean > by "manufacturer control" is to quote from one of the documents > from the DVD 4C entities: [quote omitted] The "manufacturer control" you refer to is a candidates for "use control" that runs afoul of anti-competitive constraints like tying. Although it is unexplored legally (since it's obviously brand new) there should be a way to argue misuse of copyright. The access control concepts were advanced by Congress to allow new forms of content delivery of digital content, especially over the internet. The RealNetworks case is a perfect example of this -- here the consumer has not paid for any copy, so "access control" is really at play. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 11:23:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00556 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:23:30 -0400 Received: from dial243.roadrunner.com (sf-du243.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.243]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00541 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:23:27 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial243.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA00672 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:26:00 -0600 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:25:59 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface Message-ID: <20000621092559.A491@localhost> References: <20000619231426.A4010@orange.fenimore.org> <002001bfdb62$e6e7eba0$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <002001bfdb62$e6e7eba0$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>; from jtfrog@usa.net on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 02:27:20AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 02:27:20AM -0700, Jim Taylor wrote: > >Is it a matter of being unable to recompress the > >SDI data to MPEG-2 without loss? > > Right -- the reason there's loss with SDI is because the MPEG-2 data has > been decompressed to full-bandwidth video. Technically there is an > "emissions loss," but not a generational loss, since the SDI interface > provides a digital signal that can be repeatedly copied with no loss. If > it's re-encoded to MPEG-2, then there's an additional coding loss. However, > with a good encoder most people won't be able to tell the difference from > the original. The "emissions loss" versus "generational" is an important distinction. Thanks for the clarification and the nomenclature. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 11:24:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00694 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:24:15 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00678 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:24:13 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 134mOY-00068d-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:26:26 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 134mOa-0004Im-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:26:28 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:26:28 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (recently) Message-ID: <20000621172628.B16432@inka.de> References: <3950D704.10A490A0@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from frank@funcom.com on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 05:02:08PM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 05:02:08PM +0200, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: > > > We should craft a letter to the editor or dissenting op-ed piece, > > perhaps comparing statements in the piece with things he claimed not to > > know or understand in his deposition. > > in this respect it is a rather clever propagande piece in a larger > smear and FUD campaign. And maybe it would be a good idea to show it up as just that. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 11:29:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00784 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:29:13 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00781 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:29:11 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 134mTN-0006Ix-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:31:25 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 134mTP-0004KP-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:31:27 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:31:27 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface Message-ID: <20000621173127.C16432@inka.de> References: <20000619231426.A4010@orange.fenimore.org> <002001bfdb62$e6e7eba0$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <20000621092559.A491@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000621092559.A491@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 09:25:59AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 02:27:20AM -0700, Jim Taylor wrote: > >Is it a matter of being unable to recompress the > >SDI data to MPEG-2 without loss? > > Right -- the reason there's loss with SDI is because the MPEG-2 data has > been decompressed to full-bandwidth video. Technically there is an > "emissions loss," but not a generational loss, since the SDI interface > provides a digital signal that can be repeatedly copied with no loss. If > it's re-encoded to MPEG-2, then there's an additional coding loss. In theory it should be possible to write an reencoder that would produce an MPEG-2 stream identical to the original given the decomressped data and the knowledge that it cane from an existing MPEG-2 stream, but the process would probably be prone to errors rather like OCR, which would be very difficult, and in some cases probably impossible to avoid. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 11:42:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00897 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:42:10 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA00894 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:42:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20000621154351.10647.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:43:51 PDT Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:43:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Devil's advocate on antitrust: ATM networks 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: > I've got an analogy to suggest the DVD licensing regime, including > CSS, is probably legal: ATM networks. ATM's are not owned by the consumer, though, and your ATM card doesn't really hold the crucial information (your live bank balance) that you are accessing. Further, the banking industry occupies a special place in Federal law, so it's highly regulated nature probably puts anti-trust considerations in a different framework. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 11:53:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA01062 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:53:22 -0400 Received: from dial143.roadrunner.com (sf-du143.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA01059 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:53:17 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial143.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA00824 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:55:55 -0600 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:55:55 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface Message-ID: <20000621095554.A803@localhost> References: <20000619231426.A4010@orange.fenimore.org> <002001bfdb62$e6e7eba0$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <20000621092559.A491@localhost> <20000621173127.C16432@inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000621173127.C16432@inka.de>; from mail@risctaker.inka.de on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 05:31:27PM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 05:31:27PM +0200, Sham Gardner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 02:27:20AM -0700, Jim Taylor wrote: > > >Is it a matter of being unable to recompress the > > >SDI data to MPEG-2 without loss? > > > > Right -- the reason there's loss with SDI is because the MPEG-2 data has > > been decompressed to full-bandwidth video. Technically there is an > > "emissions loss," but not a generational loss, since the SDI interface > > provides a digital signal that can be repeatedly copied with no loss. If > > it's re-encoded to MPEG-2, then there's an additional coding loss. > > In theory it should be possible to write an reencoder that would produce an > MPEG-2 stream identical to the original given the decomressped data and the > knowledge that it cane from an existing MPEG-2 stream, but the process would > probably be prone to errors rather like OCR, which would be very difficult, > and in some cases probably impossible to avoid. Certainly this proceedure might be possible for decompression only followed by recompression. So this is the crux: There is an intermediate step which is converting the data to the format SDI wants. It might be _impossible_ to recompress without loss (relative to the original MPEG-2 file) using MPEG-2 after the intervening SDI conversion. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 12:24:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01340 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:24:31 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01337 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:24:29 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:27:16 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C6B@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:27:16 -0700 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 Oh, I thought he was saying that unless the MPAA could show harm then there was no cause for an injunction ... context is everything, eh? We can easily show the harm in the (so-called) access control mechanisms, as it prevents people from excercising rights already recognized by the courts (fair use). -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Stratton [mailto:cpt@gryphon.auspice.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 5:11 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes > > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > > Page 28: > > > 9 Okay, last point. You really have only > > > 10 one determination to make, and that determination is > > > 11 adverse effect. It's really a harm test. You have > > > 12 to find harm. If you do not find harm, the inquiry > > > 13 stops. And the burden of finding harm is pretty > > > 14 high. The burden is for people to present to you > > > 15 specific instances where it has occurred. No harm, > > > 16 no action. > > > > Why do you dislike this excerpt? I agree with this! > > But they have not shown harm, so ... > > Heh. You're not exactly helping our side. But it's ok, since > he's being > weasly and using our own types of language against us. > > What he's saying is: Unless anti-DMCA forces can show that > the DMCA causes > harm - and chilling effects, etc don't count - then the DMCA > stands. ONLY > if we can show that there has been harm caused by the > existance of access > controls can they be pulled. That is, while in the 2600 case > the plantiffs > have to show harm, he says that in the DMCA review, *WE* have to show > harm. > > So unless we have hard proof that CSS harms us, which is virtually > impossible the way that it's written (many things which > reasonable people > would think of as harm are permitted), access controls would > stand insofar > as the Librarian of Congress is concerned. > > I didn't see anything that Simon said that would be good for > us; if he had > his way we'd all probably have to rent words from the coiners for > perpetuity. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 12:32:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01462 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:32:48 -0400 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 MAA01459 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:32:46 -0400 Received: from bugbug (max02-50.suba.com [206.69.121.114]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA17013 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:34:54 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:34:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (recently) Message-ID: <3950A842.25160.59CA4B@localhost> In-reply-to: <3950D704.10A490A0@mninter.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 21 Jun 2000, at 9:53, Chris Moseng wrote: > We should craft a letter to the editor or dissenting op-ed piece, > perhaps comparing statements in the piece with things he claimed not > to know or understand in his deposition. I second this. Call the metaphor police and get the Seths to supervise the particular response, or at least their input should be doubly important, as they were the (mainly IIRC) the ones dissenting from creating "alternate" metaphors. > > Of course, it has been established that the Times runs Op-Ed pieces > for money, and then will not print counter arguments unless they are > for money, too. A letter to the editor from Harvard on such a high-profile case will probably not need payment to be printed. sparekey > > http://www.brillscontent.com/columns/blur_0599.html > > Then again, I don't get the Times, so what do I know? > > Chris > (cynical) > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 12:34:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01509 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:34:31 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01506 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:34:30 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:37:18 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C6C@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:37:17 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: S. Michael Patton [mailto:mpatton@nilles-nilles.com] ... > > Ladies and Gentlemen, we are on the defensive. We must start > considering > the offensive. I would like to discuss a wonderful test case, > in private, > that I believe would flesh out the law in favor of > traditional copyright. I > do not wish to give the details here in plain text, since the > case I propose > can be easily avoided by some relatively simple precautions > on the part of > those who strongly favor an expansive interpretation of the DMCA. With encryption there is a principle that holds that if the encryption is only sound while it's algorithm is held secret then it is not a good technique. With law I expect it is similar, if it can't hold up when exposed to the light, then it probably ain't worth pursuing. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 12:56:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01910 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:56:29 -0400 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01907 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:56:27 -0400 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id JAA19405 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost1.ia.nsc.com(147.5.200.40) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma018816; Wed, 21 Jun 00 09:57:33 -0700 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA11063; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:57:30 -0600 From: "John Zulauf" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:59:56 -0600 Message-ID: <000001bfdba2$2022ce00$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> 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 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal 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 spot on and a crucial important distinction. Since reading the deposition cited below this has been ringing through my head. Divx comprises access control, CSS comprises use control. > Indeed, Fritz Attaway, the MPAA's Washington DC General > Counsel and major Congressional Lobbyist, testified that "[i]n order > to obtain authorized access to a DVD, the consumer has to in effect > make two purchases. He or she has to buy . . . a DVD disk . . . and > also has to purchase a DVD display device." Hernstadt Declaration, > Exh. E (Attaway Depo., 30:1-11). When I buy a DVD there is NO access control so long as I am using a licensed player for the region of the disk. There is no requirement to use a smart-card, one-time use code, dial-up authorization or any other mean to authenticate my right-to-play my DVD. My right to play the disk is assumed by the player (even if I have no actual right to view the disk -- i.e. I had stolen the disk, or if it were a byte-for-byte stamped pirate copy). Embodied into CSS are the "first sale" assumptions -- the user that holds the disk has the right to view it. A system that assumes the authorization to view of any media inserted into a player CANNOT be considered to be an access control means, as no access control or authorization is performed. This means that CSS is not an access control means, but simply a means to specifically prevent interoperability. LiviD (and thus DeCSS) neither adds to or subtract from my right to access (it simply allows me to space shift onto an alternative platform and therefore cannot be described as circumventing "access control" under the meaning of the statute. (ok, IANAL) I think that it is important to distinguish for the purpose of the existing proceedings between DVD CSS player-based "authorization" and Divx **service-based** authorization. Circumvention of CSS denies the copyright holder no funds, provides no additional access rights (only allows space shifting and interoperability) whereas software to unlock Divx disks would be "breaking into the video store" circumventing rental agreement/pay-per-view agreement and deny funds to the copyright holder. CSS authorizes viewing based on the choice of player, whereas Divx authorizes viewing based on autheniticated pay-per-view rights. The latter is (and probably should be) covered by the statute, the former is not. The former is specifically targeted at preventing interoperability, something the statute does not specifically protect (and can be read to prohibit). On the matter of region coding. Three points. First, the MPAA does not want to hang this case on region control, this forces them to abandon their "moral high ground" of "wascly piwates!" If they are forced to admit that the only way they can defend CSS as access control is through region control, they lose the PR battle and will lose ground legislatively. Second, we have expert deposition testimony that CSS has NOTHING to do with region control. I don't know why this guy said this (it's technically bogus), but he did, so we can safely ignore region control in the DeCSS matter. Finally, region control as an "access control" won't work legally" this sort of control cannot be held to be legal as watching my Region 1 DVD on vaction in Bali is a much space-shifting as listening to a taped CD on my walkman. The space, time, and format shifting cases are well established in fair use precedent (and the DCMA specifically states that fair use is not affected). IANAL --- IANAL --- IANAL --- IANAL --- IANAL --- IANAL --- IANAL --- IANAL jzulauf -- private citizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 13:05:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02108 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:05:30 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02105 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:05:28 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA13573 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:07:29 -0500 Message-ID: <3950F72B.7058DDC5@mninter.net> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:11:07 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Trial timeline? 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 Is there somewhere I can find a timeline to the proceedings? Both sides have been mum for about a week, and I just am curious what they're up to. I assume depositions have continued, but they must be of the sort that didn't have to be released expeditiously. Thanks. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 13:15:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02295 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:15:08 -0400 Received: from cyclesoftware.com (www.cyclesoftware.com [209.46.107.178]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA02292 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:15:07 -0400 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000505434 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:16:46 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000621173127.C16432@inka.de> References: <20000619231426.A4010@orange.fenimore.org> <002001bfdb62$e6e7eba0$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <20000621092559.A491@localhost> <20000621173127.C16432@inka.de> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:16:46 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface 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 >In theory it should be possible to write an reencoder that would produce an >MPEG-2 stream identical to the original given the decomressped data and the >knowledge that it cane from an existing MPEG-2 stream, but the process would >probably be prone to errors There is more than one reason this claim is inaccurate. First, there is almost no chance that a decompressed MPEG-2 stream will recreate the original stream. Don't forget that DVD's tend to use about 40 to 1 or 50 to 1 compression ratios. It is designed to minimize viewing fidelity effects but even given an identical compression effort you are unlikely to reproduce the original MPEG-2 stream. The other issue I allude to in the previous sentence. Creating a good MPEG-2 stream from a source is not exactly a highly automated process. When such processes are applied, as they are for conversion from NTSC to MPEG-2 as used by the satellite companies for live video feeds, the results can be disappointing unless then compression ratios are decreased significantly. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 13:21:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02460 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:21:45 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02457 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:21:43 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 134oEG-0002mc-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:23:56 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 134oEI-00053J-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:23:58 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:23:58 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface Message-ID: <20000621192358.A19048@inka.de> References: <20000619231426.A4010@orange.fenimore.org> <002001bfdb62$e6e7eba0$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <20000621092559.A491@localhost> <20000621173127.C16432@inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from steve_bryan@mac.com on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 12:16:46PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 12:16:46PM -0500, steve bryan wrote: > >In theory it should be possible to write an reencoder that would produce an > >MPEG-2 stream identical to the original given the decomressped data and the > >knowledge that it cane from an existing MPEG-2 stream, but the process would > >probably be prone to errors > > There is more than one reason this claim is inaccurate. First, there > is almost no chance that a decompressed MPEG-2 stream will recreate > the original stream. Don't forget that DVD's tend to use about 40 to > 1 or 50 to 1 compression ratios. It is designed to minimize viewing > fidelity effects but even given an identical compression effort you > are unlikely to reproduce the original MPEG-2 stream. In fact I'm quite sure an identical compression effect will practtically *never* reproduce the original stream. What I was talking about is a specialised recompressor that attempts to deduce the comressed data from the decompresed data. As I said, for lossy algorithm like MPEG this would be far from trivial, and would probably never be exact process, much like OCR. > The other issue > I allude to in the previous sentence. Creating a good MPEG-2 stream > from a source is not exactly a highly automated process. Exact recompression would be even harder to automate, as I said, "theoretically possible". I can well believe that it would be a practical impossibility. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 13:25:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02598 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:25:49 -0400 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 NAA02595 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:25:48 -0400 Received: from ip129.bedford7.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.77.129]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 134oIC-0002MC-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:28:01 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti's at it again Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:22:06 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4.2.2.20000621100511.0189a400@law.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000621100511.0189a400@law.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 NAA02596 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wendy wrote: >In an NYT op-ed this time: > >Broadband "plunderers," "pilfering zealots," "casual thieves," and >"Internet marauders" will be the death of Hollywood (but they don't seem to >be using DeCSS on the movies "now in theaters"). I think the point of 'now in theaters' is that this will soon mean 'now on satellite.' I think we've shown that DVD piracy is not practical except for organized pirate replicators. Perhaps the rhetorical battle doesn't concern DVD but the digital future as a whole. The move away from film will be a windfall for H'wood. MPEG-2 MP@ML delivered to theaters via satellite will eliminate the cost of prints and free the industry to market lots of films that don't get made today. This is good news. Theaters will store these downloads on RAID-connected servers to play on DLP projectors. The large market-driven question is: when high quality films are on satellites, how many ways might they be delivered (while still protecting the theater owners and various companies like Blockbuster?) >There's No Free Hollywood >By Jack Valenti I _love_ this guy--great diction. If by Mr. V. himself, god bless him! >WASHINGTON -- Musicians like Metallica and Dr. Dre are >furious at the casual thieves whose hard drives bulge with music >snatched free over the Internet, thanks to software designed specifically >to make stealing easy. So far, the slow transmission of graphic images >has kept the problem confined mainly to audio. But movies are next in >line, and their turn won't be long in coming. Let's take a break for a minute to consider radio. All of that government-controlled spectrum dedicated to companies that abet the stealing of music. Songs being recorded 24 hours a day; taped and traded; taken to school--a veritable swamp of stolen goods. My hard drive bulges at the thought. And yet somehow the music business muddles on. As one who has downloaded a feature film over a 56K modem [~300MB of blurry MPEG-1; a rare cult film not available on DVD or VHS; took about four afternoons, ] I can assure you that film trading over the Net is far from becoming a threat to Blockbuster. Recently my cable company advertised the month's PPV selections with the come-on "available to tape in the comfort of your home." Mind you I can today capture any one of my taped PPV movies to an AVI; compress to RA, MPEG-1/2, DivX; split into about thirty RAR files and upload to some Internet drive sharing site. It would only take about another four afternoons. Will I? (Don't hold your breath.) Will anyone? (probably) Will you? The next question is when someone else uploads that $3.99 movie on the Net will I go there to get it or will I pay for it? Well, after spending those four days screwing around for the questionable MPEG [was it taped from broadcast or cable? did I have the whole thing or 'edited for content'?] I know where I'll go. >A number of new movies, the ones now in theaters, have already been >put on the Internet by pilfering zealots eager to enfold films in the same >embrace now choking the music world, even though few computer users >yet have ways to download them. Some cable companies--Time Warner is one--have been testing video on demand servers in various locations. The mixed results of these tests should be studied by anyone worried about Napster-Gnutella being repeated with movies on residential broadband networks. IOW the paid professionals aren't exactly pulling it off yet. College students who try to run an illicit movie server are likely to get promptly kicked off their LAN. >Neither I nor anyone else in the movie industry chooses to rail against >technology. Every company I know about is busily spending millions >trying to develop business models that will have rapport with the Internet. > >But what the nation, particularly the Congress and the courts, must >confront is how to protect people's privacy, while ensuring that creative >artists and distributors can transport movies and music without their >valuable works being burglarized. Well we know what Michael Eisner thinks about people's privacy. Why is Jack suddenly worried about our privacy? Is there something he isn't telling us? The Seagrams CEO also blurted about privacy recently--days before the deal with Vivendi. >Copyright protects not just the financial interest of people who create >artistic or intellectual property, but the very existence of creative work. And continues to protect it even without DMCA. >[... and the key analogies just get worse:] > >The Internet marauders argue that copyright is old-fashioned, a decaying Any quotes or URLs here? Internet Marauders? Net-Masked avengers? Who? Where? >relic of a non-Internet world. But suppose some genius invented a magic >key that could open the front door of every home in America and wanted Suppose some other genius invented a lock that went over every door, replacing your own lock. This is what they have in store and why they are suddenly worried about everyone's privacy. When they encrypt the Net, everybody will need a key and it won't be their own key. It will be a key given by Bertelsmann, AOL, or Vivendi. >to make the keys available to everyone under a canopy sign that read, >"It's a new world -- take what you want." No, just take what you need and leave the rest. Unfortunately, the IP colonists will be encrypting the public domain as well. They won't be leaving any stone unturned. I'd say the majority of us want the original copyright law before 70 years after the death of the author. A return to 28 years might be appropriate--maybe even the original 14. >Wouldn't it be the responsibility of our society to try to control the use of >that key? You said it. Hear hear! __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 13:50:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02766 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:50:59 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02761 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:50:57 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA19363 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:52:59 -0500 Message-ID: <395101B1.3A447FD1@mninter.net> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:56:01 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Trial timeline? References: <3950F72B.7058DDC5@mninter.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 Nevermind, I appear to have found may answer on 2600: > Here, with respect to six plaintiffs, there is neither testimony of > any kind, and with respect to five plaintiffs, no documents of > any kind. Nothing fundamental has happened in the last week. > The potential "agreement" submitted to the Court has been ignored > by the plaintiffs. http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0619-opp.txt Chris Moseng wrote: > > Is there somewhere I can find a timeline to the proceedings? Both sides > have been mum for about a week, and I just am curious what they're up > to. I assume depositions have continued, but they must be of the sort > that didn't have to be released expeditiously. > > Thanks. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 13:56:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02893 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:56:25 -0400 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 NAA02890 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:56:24 -0400 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:2.21) with ESMTP id NAA04179 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:58:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id NAA19486; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:58:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:58:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006211758.NAA19486@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <8ipq7r$p76$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <8ipq7r$p76$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu David A. Wagner writes: > Some writers have characterized CSS as "access control". But I'd like > to ask whether it may be time to re-consider that viewpoint. > > Has anyone considered whether CSS may be best viewed, not as a means of > controlling access to copyrighted works, but as a means of controlling > manufacturers of DVD player devices? In other words, does CSS exist to > constrain manufacturers rather than to constrain copyright-criminals? Well, yes... http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg01908.html is a fairly long essay which tries to determine what "access control" means in the context of 1201 from the legislative history, argues that CSS falls short, and argues that the purpose of it is, in fact, manufacturer control. I'm also not the only person who has noted that there are aspects of the system which are apparently designed for manufacturer control --- the whole business of player keys, for example, is designed so that a "rogue" *manufacturer* can be punished, and *can't* be used to control access of any particular person to any particular title (since that person could always buy a different manufacturer's authorized player). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 13:58:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02937 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:58:34 -0400 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02934 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:58:32 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniihn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.74.55]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA32468 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:00:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006211800.OAA32468@blount.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:59:33 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Trial timeline? In-Reply-To: <3950F72B.7058DDC5@mninter.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 There is a fierce fight right now over MPAA's refusal to provide discovery material. MPAA has filed a motion for a protective order on just about everything the defense has requested, claiming attorney-client privilege and other assertions. 2600 has filed a reply challenging the motion which will be on Cryptome later today. Trench warfare, hand to hand, axe to neck, eyeballs long gone, savaging by smell of terror and exhiliration, crying inchaote infancies, merciless. Kaplan bemused, dreaming appelately, daring supreme unction. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 14:03:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03054 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:03:20 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03050 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:03:19 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA16129 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:05:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:05:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Trial timeline? In-Reply-To: <395101B1.3A447FD1@mninter.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 06/21/00 at 12:56, 'twas brillig and Chris Moseng scrobe: > Nevermind, I appear to have found may answer on 2600: [..] > > http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0619-opp.txt Ugh. That's a pain! For those who don't like the non-wrapped version, I ran it through fill-region in emacs: http://www.cs.umass.edu/~olc/pub/0619-opp.txt Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 14:20:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03262 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:20:39 -0400 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 OAA03259 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:20:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA31706 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:22:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:22:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (recently) In-Reply-To: <3950D704.10A490A0@mninter.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, 21 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: > We should craft a letter to the editor or dissenting op-ed piece, > perhaps comparing statements in the piece with things he claimed not to > know or understand in his deposition. > > Of course, it has been established that the Times runs Op-Ed pieces for > money, and then will not print counter arguments unless they are for > money, too. > http://www.brillscontent.com/columns/blur_0599.html > Then again, I don't get the Times, so what do I know? The Brill's content piece refers to quarter page advertsements which are immediately distiquishable from the rest of the editorial page's copy. The Jack Valenti piece was an Op-Ed piece, and not submitted for monetary consideration. The issue ads don't appear on the web site. Valenti's column does. (I subscribe to the print edition) Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 14:38:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03598 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:38:05 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03595 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:38:03 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:44:00 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4DD9@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control ? Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:44:00 -0400 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 Well, tie me to an anthill and jub jam on my ears... "constraining its use" -- we had a long discussion that CSS was not access control but "use control." Now we have a statement that shows that straight from the horses mouth. -----Original Message----- From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu [mailto:daw@cs.berkeley.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 3:18 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Perhaps one of the best ways to illustrate what I mean by "manufacturer control" is to quote from one of the documents from the DVD 4C entities: The protection comes from compliant devices responding appropriately to manage the content according to the [information carried with the content that indicates conditions constraining its use]. Such protection is realized only if there is some means, or "hook", to compel devices to be compliant. Encryption is that hook. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 15:07:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04052 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:07:38 -0400 Received: from cyclesoftware.com (www.cyclesoftware.com [209.46.107.178]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA04049 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:07:31 -0400 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000505633 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:09:08 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000621192358.A19048@inka.de> References: <20000619231426.A4010@orange.fenimore.org> <002001bfdb62$e6e7eba0$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <20000621092559.A491@localhost> <20000621173127.C16432@inka.de> <20000621192358.A19048@inka.de> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:09:07 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface 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 >In fact I'm quite sure an identical compression effect will practtically >*never* reproduce the original stream. What I was talking about is a >specialised recompressor that attempts to deduce the comressed data from the >decompresed data. As I said, for lossy algorithm like MPEG this would be far >from trivial, and would probably never be exact process, much like OCR. Thanks for taking the time to point out exactly what you were expressing. I missed the point that you were talking about a re-compressor which was specifically trying to reverse an assumed decompression. I don't know if the math allows for such reversibility but it is interesting to contemplate such a possibility. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 15:30:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04264 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:30:25 -0400 Received: from www0w.netaddress.usa.net (www0w.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.24.52]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA04261 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:30:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 23136 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Jun 2000 19:32:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20000621193236.23135.qmail@www0w.netaddress.usa.net> Received: from 204.68.24.52 by www0w for [128.122.253.144] via web-mailer(34WB1.4.03) on Wed Jun 21 19:32:36 GMT 2000 Date: 21 Jun 00 15:32:36 EDT From: "Tuyet A.Ngoc Tran" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: USANET web-mailer (34WB1.4.03) 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 PAA04262 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The Atlantic Research project from the Proc. Euro. Conf. Multimedia App. Services & Techniques (ECMAST) had shown an improved way of reducing concatenation loss: MPEG-2----Atlantic ---Video -----Atlantic----MPEG-2 Decoder Encoder Steering Data Picture types, vectors The schematic shows that the second encoder in a concatenated scheme does make its own decisions from the incoming video but is instead steered by information from the first bitstream. The second encoder has less intelligence - dim encoder. The information bus carries all the structure of the original MPEG-2 bitstream which would be lost in a conventional decoder. The Atlantic decoder also places on the information bus all parameters needed to make the dime encoder re-enact what the initial MPEG-2 encode did as closely as possible. Where the GOP sturcutre is passed on so that pictures are re-encoded as the same type. The postiions of macroblock boundaries become identical so that DVT blocks contain the same pixels and motion vectors relate to the same screen data. The weighting and quantizing tables are passed so that the coefficient truncation is identical. Motion vectors from the original bitstream are passed on so that the dim encoder does not need to perform motion estimation. The resulting picture will be identical to the original prediction and the prediction error data will also be the same. For this approach to apply in recompression, where an MPEG-2 bitstream has to have its bit rate reduced by higher requantizing of coefficients, where many other parameters, i.e. motion vectors can be kept the same when possible, then the degradation will be minimized. Tuyet Jim Taylor" RE: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface >Is it a matter of being unable to recompress the >SDI data to MPEG-2 without loss? Right -- the reason there's loss with SDI is because the MPEG-2 data has been decompressed to full-bandwidth video. Technically there is an "emissions loss," but not a generational loss, since the SDI interface provides a digital signal that can be repeatedly copied with no loss. If it's re-encoded to MPEG-2, then there's an additional coding loss. However, with a good encoder most people won't be able to tell the difference from the original. -Snip- -- Jim Taylor Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ ; ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 15:38:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04400 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:38:06 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04397 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:38:05 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05331 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:40:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10453 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:40:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:40:18 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C6C@mail2.onetouch.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, 21 Jun 2000, Richard Hartman wrote: > > With encryption there is a principle that holds that if the > encryption is only sound while it's algorithm is held secret > then it is not a good technique. With law I expect it is similar, > if it can't hold up when exposed to the light, then it probably > ain't worth pursuing. > I have to agree with Richard here. Way back when, there was a closed list formed by some of the members of this list, which I opposed, since I felt that OpenLaw was all about openness, which I feel is at the heart of what this case is about. We (or at least I) should not want to win one lawsuit in favor of openness, if that neccessitates giving up the very principle for which we fight. We can go fishing for anti-DMCA plaintiffs, but that doesn't require the kind of secrecy suggested. For example, the CDA was beaten (in the landmark online freedom case thus far) without any particular plaintiff. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 16:49:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05135 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:49:07 -0400 Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (sendmail@mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.3.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA05132 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:49:05 -0400 Received: from ntserver.nilles-nilles.com ([169.207.176.194]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.9.1) id PAA12980 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:51:20 -0500 Received: by NTSERVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:53:43 -0500 Message-ID: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B6BC@NTSERVER> From: "S. Michael Patton" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:53:42 -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 There is a saying in football that you don't give away your playbook to the opponent. ;) I would be glad to share the details with a teammate, however. Again, if anyone (especially attorneys or law students) are interested in developing a test case, please get in touch, or if someone else is already developing test cases, please get in touch with me. Regards, Mike Patton > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 11:37 AM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes > > > > With encryption there is a principle that holds that if the > encryption is only sound while it's algorithm is held secret > then it is not a good technique. With law I expect it is similar, > if it can't hold up when exposed to the light, then it probably > ain't worth pursuing. > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 16:57:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05248 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:57:07 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA05245 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:57:06 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23013 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:59:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06602 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:59:20 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:59:20 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes In-Reply-To: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B6BC@NTSERVER> 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, 21 Jun 2000, S. Michael Patton wrote: > There is a saying in football that you don't give away your playbook to the > opponent. ;) I would be glad to share the details with a teammate, however. While I don't play football (too skinny) I do play Ultimate Frisbee. And int the summer league I am in, if the captain wants to show our team something, he just demonstrates it right on the field, in full view of the other team. While that is less serious than this case (althouh I get injured more there) the principle is the same. I am here because I think we can win this case on the merits of the law and the facts, *regardless* of what some intern at Proskauer reads on this list. If I din't believe that, I would devote the time to Freenet instead (maybe I should :-). I am willing to go to jail for this case. (And I do mean that.) I am not willing to give up the principle of openess that is what we are all fighting for. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 17:03:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05353 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:03:01 -0400 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 RAA05350 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:02:53 -0400 Received: from travel-net.com (trj200.travel-net.com [207.176.160.200]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05480 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:05:22 -0400 Message-ID: <39512D98.18DE5215@travel-net.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:03:20 -0400 From: Dan Steinberg Organization: Synthesis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes References: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B6BC@NTSERVER> 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 Just to continue with Mike's thread, you also don't discuss details of the algorithm until you are sure you have done everything you can to break it yourself. "S. Michael Patton" wrote: > > There is a saying in football that you don't give away your playbook to the > opponent. ;) I would be glad to share the details with a teammate, however. > > Again, if anyone (especially attorneys or law students) are interested in > developing a test case, please get in touch, or if someone else is already > developing test cases, please get in touch with me. > > Regards, > > Mike Patton > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 11:37 AM > > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes > > > > > > > > With encryption there is a principle that holds that if the > > encryption is only sound while it's algorithm is held secret > > then it is not a good technique. With law I expect it is similar, > > if it can't hold up when exposed to the light, then it probably > > ain't worth pursuing. > > > > -- > > -Richard M. Hartman > > hartman@onetouch.com > > > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 17:05:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05443 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:05:49 -0400 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA05440 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:05:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20000621210732.4415.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:07:32 PDT Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] CVS on eon 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 Thanks to Wendy, I've got a CVS repository started on eon. I am ready to start setting up users and projects. I guess we'll set it up for anonymous read access, but require permission to check in. If there are any things out there that people would like to propose as pilot projects, please post to the list. Any comments generally about how we should work CVS into the context of openlaw/DVD are welcome too. BTW, I am rather new to CVS, as I imagine some others are too. For those of you that don't know, CVS is a repository for managing concurrent development of files. It allows simultaneous development using the copy-modify-merge model as opposed to the lock-modify-unlock model. I understand that there are windows front ends. It is a standard part of most linux distributions, of couse. People shouldn't feel like they HAVE to learn a new tool to contribute, but rather that IF they do, then it'll make their life easier. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 17:09:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05490 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:09:15 -0400 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05487 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:09:10 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29886 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:11:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (sytobinh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15578 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:11:24 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:11:24 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes In-Reply-To: <39512D98.18DE5215@travel-net.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, 21 Jun 2000, Dan Steinberg wrote: > Just to continue with Mike's thread, you also don't discuss details of > the algorithm until you are sure you have done everything you can to > break it yourself. As an free software developer, I have to take exception to this (although I don't do crypto). The whole idea with free software is that peo;le see he testing stages (and every other stage). That's what makes it great. I thought the premise behind openlaw was to apply that sucess to law. I hope other people agree with me. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 17:23:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05648 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:23:36 -0400 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 RAA05645 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:23:34 -0400 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 OAA03280 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:23:26 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA26463; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:22:18 -0700 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] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Date: 21 Jun 2000 14:21:09 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 17 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8irbk5$pqu$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000621152442.6962.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000621152442.6962.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>, Bryan Taylor wrote: > We've tried > a couple times to differentiate "access controls" from "use controls". Yes, I know, but I was suggesting that maybe CSS should be viewed as neither "access control" nor "use control" but rather as "manufacturer control". After all, manufacturers neither access nor use the copyrighted works, yet may well be the main target of CSS. Thus, "manufacturer control" is a third, entirely different category of protection mechanisms. I am not trying to make any arguments about tying. I am simply suggesting that if CSS is primarily "manufacturer control", then it is _not_ "access control", and thus perhaps not protected by the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. Sorry if I didn't make this clear. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 17:30:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05797 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:30:05 -0400 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 RAA05794 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:30:04 -0400 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 OAA03307 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:29:56 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA26485; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:28:48 -0700 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] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Date: 21 Jun 2000 14:28:38 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 19 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8irc26$prk$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <000001bfdba2$2022ce00$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <000001bfdba2$2022ce00$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>, John Zulauf wrote: > This is spot on and a crucial important distinction. Since reading the > deposition cited below this has been ringing through my head. Divx > comprises access control, CSS comprises use control. I'm aware of the arguments that CSS is use control, not access control. But I'm making a different argument entirely. I'm saying it may not be access control, and moreover it may not be use control, either! Both use control and access control are about controlling the consumer, i.e., about preventing the end viewer from taking certain actions. But the quote I posted suggests that maybe CSS has nothing to do with consumers. Maybe CSS is about exerting control over _manufacturers_. If so, it's neither access control nor use control, and thus -- perhaps -- would not be protected by the DMCA. Or so the argument goes, anyway. This is an independent argument for why CSS may not be access control. It's not the same as the "use control" argument. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 17:33:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05914 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:33:23 -0400 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 RAA05911 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:33:22 -0400 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 OAA03341 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:33:13 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA26512; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:32:05 -0700 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] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Date: 21 Jun 2000 14:31:56 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 20 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8irc8c$psf$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <8ipq7r$p76$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <200006211758.NAA19486@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 <200006211758.NAA19486@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Well, yes... > > http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg01908.html > > is a fairly long essay which tries to determine what "access control" > means in the context of 1201 from the legislative history, argues > that CSS falls short, and argues that the purpose of it is, in fact, > manufacturer control. Thanks. Yes, you're right. Ok! I do see one small difference between your argument and what I am arguing, though. Your argument seems to rest on showing that Congress didn't intend to enable tying, cartels, and so on. I'm suggesting that (maybe) we don't need to get into any of this tying or cartel stuff -- if CSS is not about controlling the actions of viewers, then it is not access control in the meaning of the language of the DMCA, and so circumvention is permitted. That's one view, anyway; what do you think of it? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 17:44:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06134 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:44:52 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06131 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:44:51 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:47:40 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C6D@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:47:39 -0700 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 I dunno about that. Either the process depends upon the inherant properties of the algorithm which, even when made public, can not be broken (easily) or it relies upon keeping "secret" information and once the secret is out, your dead. The more eyes on it, the more likely flaws will be exposed. (True flaws, not mere "surprises" which is all you can hope for if you are relying upon secrecy...) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:dstein@travel-net.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 2:03 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes > > > Just to continue with Mike's thread, you also don't discuss details of > the algorithm until you are sure you have done everything you can to > break it yourself. > > "S. Michael Patton" wrote: > > > > There is a saying in football that you don't give away your > playbook to the > > opponent. ;) I would be glad to share the details with a > teammate, however. > > > > Again, if anyone (especially attorneys or law students) are > interested in > > developing a test case, please get in touch, or if someone > else is already > > developing test cases, please get in touch with me. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mike Patton > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 11:37 AM > > > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes > > > > > > > > > > > > With encryption there is a principle that holds that if the > > > encryption is only sound while it's algorithm is held secret > > > then it is not a good technique. With law I expect it is similar, > > > if it can't hold up when exposed to the light, then it probably > > > ain't worth pursuing. > > > > > > -- > > > -Richard M. Hartman > > > hartman@onetouch.com > > > > > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > > -- > Dan Steinberg > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 > Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 > J9B 1N1 e-mail: synthesis@travel-net.com > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 17:57:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06248 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:57:22 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06245 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:57:20 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 134sWz-0002MG-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:59:33 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:59:33 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Message-ID: <20000621145933.V15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C6D@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C6D@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 02:47:39PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman writes: > I dunno about that. Either the process depends upon the > inherant properties of the algorithm which, even when made > public, can not be broken (easily) or it relies upon keeping > "secret" information and once the secret is out, your dead. > > The more eyes on it, the more likely flaws will be exposed. > (True flaws, not mere "surprises" which is all you can > hope for if you are relying upon secrecy...) So the problem is that the person suggesting this lawsuit seems to believe that there is a way that the defendants could forestall it, if they knew about it in advance. (Speculations: maybe by changing some license text given to the public, or altering the terms of an industry agreement somehow*.) He's not saying (I think) that letting them prepare a legal defense in advance is bad for the test case, but that letting the prospective defendants alter their behavior beforehand is risky. I suspect that is wrong, because I've heard that judges expect one to send a demand letter before filing a lawsuit, most of the time, but of course I haven't heard the proposal. * It's clear that some companies are willing to alter their language on the strength of hypothetical legal arguments they read on-line, if they think people are serious. I've seen at least three examples of this happening in real life, one of which was during this case. (The text of MPAA demand letters has changed in response to criticisms of those demand letters on this and other lists, though I don't know how direct the connection was.) -- 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 Jun 21 18:35:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06490 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:35:08 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06487 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:35:06 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 134t7X-0002bf-00; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:37:19 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:37:19 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Message-ID: <20000621153719.W15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000621152442.6962.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <8irbk5$pqu$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <8irbk5$pqu$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from daw@cs.berkeley.edu on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 02:21:09PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu David A. Wagner writes: > In article <20000621152442.6962.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>, > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > We've tried > > a couple times to differentiate "access controls" from "use controls". > > Yes, I know, but I was suggesting that maybe CSS should be viewed > as neither "access control" nor "use control" but rather as "manufacturer > control". After all, manufacturers neither access nor use the copyrighted > works, yet may well be the main target of CSS. Thus, "manufacturer control" > is a third, entirely different category of protection mechanisms. > > I am not trying to make any arguments about tying. I am simply suggesting > that if CSS is primarily "manufacturer control", then it is _not_ "access > control", and thus perhaps not protected by the DMCA's anti-circumvention > provisions. > > Sorry if I didn't make this clear. At the risk of misusing a term of art: I think maybe David is saying that the "CSS as access control" claim is pretextual. (But I don't know if I understand what it means for something to be pretextual.) -- 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 Jun 21 18:52:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06690 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:52:34 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06687 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:52:33 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:55:22 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C6E@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:55:20 -0700 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Seth David Schoen [mailto:schoen@loyalty.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 3:00 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes > > > Richard Hartman writes: > > > I dunno about that. Either the process depends upon the > > inherant properties of the algorithm which, even when made > > public, can not be broken (easily) or it relies upon keeping > > "secret" information and once the secret is out, your dead. > > > > The more eyes on it, the more likely flaws will be exposed. > > (True flaws, not mere "surprises" which is all you can > > hope for if you are relying upon secrecy...) > > So the problem is that the person suggesting this lawsuit seems > to believe that there is a way that the defendants could forestall > it, if they knew about it in advance. (Speculations: maybe by > changing some license text given to the public, or altering the > terms of an industry agreement somehow*.) > > He's not saying (I think) that letting them prepare a legal defense > in advance is bad for the test case, but that letting the prospective > defendants alter their behavior beforehand is risky. That's what I figured too ... but since the goal of the lawsuit would be to get them to alter their behavior, wouldn't the result be the same. Bear in mind that you can force, with the lawsuit, their behavior to be altered to suit you ... you can at best get it altered to conform to the law. If they can alter their behavior to conform to the law before this case gets to court, that's the best we could've expected anyway. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 18:56:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06784 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:56:37 -0400 Received: from mailout1-100bt.midsouth.rr.com (mailout1-100bt.midsouth.rr.com [24.92.68.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06781 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:56:36 -0400 Received: from babby (m16hCs1n156.midsouth.rr.com [24.95.121.156]) by mailout1-100bt.midsouth.rr.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA03622 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:58:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <010f01bfdbd4$16447c80$0201a8c0@midsouth.rr.com> From: "Woney" To: References: <5B3CAD265EF4D2119B0F0090271507F404B6B5@NTSERVER> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:57:33 -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 5.00.2615.200 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 Try Intranets.com, they have private forums available. Larry Johnson ----- Original Message ----- From: S. Michael Patton To: Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 9:47 AM Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes > Ladies and Gentlemen, we are on the defensive. We must start considering > the offensive. I would like to discuss a wonderful test case, in private, > that I believe would flesh out the law in favor of traditional copyright. I > do not wish to give the details here in plain text, since the case I propose > can be easily avoided by some relatively simple precautions on the part of > those who strongly favor an expansive interpretation of the DMCA. > > If there are any lawyers that are interested, please email me back. If > there is someone who can provide us with a simple password-protected news > group on a web site, I would appreciate that as well (or if there is a free > website that will let me create a password protected newsgroup that would be > wonderful!) > > Every great struggle to change the law, whether civil rights, gay rights, > women's rights, abortion rights or the like has involved the creation of > carefully tailored test cases (Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, > etc.) that were designed from the ground up, years in advance, in order to > create the perfect set of facts and law. It is cases like this that we > propose to begin developing. We cannot stay on the defensive. There are > too many facts against us in the current rash of DMCA cases. We have to move > to the offense. > > Please respond if you are interested in hearing more or can help us create a > secure channel of communication. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 6:19 PM > > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chris Moseng [mailto:moseng@mninter.net] > > > > > > MR. SIMON: > > > 23 So does that mean that if, for some > > > 24 reason I, as an alumni, do have initial lawful > > > 25 access to that library on a wonderful Friday > > > 26 afternoon in May, does that mean that I can go into > > > PAGE 27 > > > 1 that library at four in the morning on Christmas Eve > > > 2 as well? The fact that I got in once legally, does > > > 3 that mean that I can get in again and again? > > > 4 Obviously, it doesn't. It can't mean that. > > > > So who sold him the library? Our argument is that the access > > to the DVD content is granted with first sale ... nobody at > > Blockbuster told me that I was only renting the thing, right? > > > > > > > > 13 There's been a fair amount of discussion > > > 14 of the evils of a metered world, of a pay-per-use > > > 15 world. I find this baffling. A huge amount of > > > 16 commercial activity in our economy, global economy, > > > 17 is based on metered use. I rented a car at the > > > 18 airport yesterday. I pay so many dollars for so > > > 19 much time. If I want to keep it longer, I pay more. > > > 20 There's nothing wrong with that concept. > > > 21 Telephone service. I pick up the phone > > > 22 to make a call, and I pay for the amount of time > > > 23 that I use it. > > > > > > > Sure ... and if you want to charge me pay-per-view > > for the DVD, set up the system that allows that to be done. > > The current system does -not- carry any indication of metered > > usage of the DVD content. > > > > Oh ... and for the record, pay-per-view DVD usage -was- > > tried, and was killed in the marketplace. How many of > > you still have a DivX coaster or two? > > > > > > > > > > Page 17: > > > 7 The goal of the copyright law is not to > > > 8 promote use of works. It is in part to promote use > > > 9 of works, but that's only one of its goals. The > > > 10 goal of the copyright law is to promote creative > > > 11 expression. > > > > The goal of copyright law is to balance the rights of the > > creator against the rights of the users. > > > > > > > > Page 28: > > > 9 Okay, last point. You really have only > > > 10 one determination to make, and that determination is > > > 11 adverse effect. It's really a harm test. You have > > > 12 to find harm. If you do not find harm, the inquiry > > > 13 stops. And the burden of finding harm is pretty > > > 14 high. The burden is for people to present to you > > > 15 specific instances where it has occurred. No harm, > > > 16 no action. > > > > Why do you dislike this excerpt? I agree with this! > > But they have not shown harm, so ... > > > > > > -- > > -Richard M. Hartman > > hartman@onetouch.com > > > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 20:48:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA07796 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:48:57 -0400 Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [216.34.245.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA07793 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:48:55 -0400 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (c05-100.015.popsite.net [64.24.76.100]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA19760 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000621174537.00d33840@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:48:21 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD for Linux Illegal? Oops 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 "In addition, due to a consequential snafu, about one page of Valenti's testimony that was meant to be redacted wound up posted on the Internet at cryptome.org. The section dealt with a fairly benign question asking Valenti whether it would be illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for Linux users to play DVDs on their computers. Valenti says it would." http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0025/howe.shtml -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 20:55:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA07890 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:55:46 -0400 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA07887 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:55:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA31707 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:57:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:57:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD for Linux Illegal? Oops In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000621174537.00d33840@cyberpass.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 But you left out the best part: Ed Hernstadt, one of Goldstein's attorneys, says it's hard to understand why Hollywood's lawyers thought the public shouldn't see this exchange. "Materials which we don't believe can be justified under any definition of confidential have been withheld from the public," Hernstadt says. Charles Sims, a lawyer for the studios and former staff counsel for the freedom-of-the-press champion ACLU, refused to discuss the issue, saying, "It's not a matter of press interest." Huh. I guess reporters don't even know what they're interested in. Good thing then that the studio's lawyers can tell them. On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, James S. Tyre wrote: > "In addition, due to a consequential snafu, about one page of Valenti's > testimony that was meant to be redacted wound up posted on the Internet > at cryptome.org. The section dealt with a fairly benign question asking > Valenti whether it would be illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright > Act for Linux users to play DVDs on their computers. Valenti says it would." > > http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0025/howe.shtml From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 21 21:08:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA08014 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:08:55 -0400 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 VAA08011 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:08:55 -0400 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:2.21) with ESMTP id VAA20772 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id VAA13800; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006220111.VAA13800@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <8irc8c$psf$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <8ipq7r$p76$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> <200006211758.NAA19486@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <8irc8c$psf$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu David A. Wagner writes: > I do see one small difference between your argument and what I am arguing, > though. Your argument seems to rest on showing that Congress didn't > intend to enable tying, cartels, and so on. I'm suggesting that (maybe) > we don't need to get into any of this tying or cartel stuff -- if CSS > is not about controlling the actions of viewers, then it is not access > control in the meaning of the language of the DMCA, and so circumvention > is permitted. That's one view, anyway; what do you think of it? Sounds like I need to redraft the thing... I don't think CSS is access control, and much of the piece argues specifically against that (first arguing for an access control key *separate from the work*, and only available to authorized users, as a definition of "effective access control" with support in the legislative record, and then arguing that CSS does not meet that definition). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 11:43:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA13823 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:43:06 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA13820 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:43:04 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:45:54 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C71@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD for Linux Illegal? Oops Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:45:53 -0700 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 I wonder why that was supposed to have been hidden from the public record? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: James S. Tyre [mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 5:48 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD for Linux Illegal? Oops > > > "In addition, due to a consequential snafu, about one page of > Valenti's > testimony that was meant to be redacted wound up posted on > the Internet > at cryptome.org. The section dealt with a fairly benign > question asking > Valenti whether it would be illegal under the Digital > Millennium Copyright > Act for Linux users to play DVDs on their computers. Valenti > says it would." > http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0025/howe.shtml -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net Bigelow, Moore & Tyre, LLP 626-792-6806/626-792-1402(fax) 540 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 15:42:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA15231 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:42:33 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA15228 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:42:29 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03872 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:43:07 -0500 Message-ID: <39526C67.4487FCF@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:43:35 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD for Linux Illegal? [OT] References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C71@mail2.onetouch.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 An anonymous source has revealed to me the nature of all of passages marked confidential, probably either by breaking into the judge's chambers or perhaps Dirk Gently-style (entirely holisticaly). Here are exerpts from the confidental passages: Valenti's Deposition > Q: DeCSS is not capable of enabling someone to break into a house. Are > you aware of this? > A: I was not aware of that. > Q: DeCSS is computer software that helps people watch movies. What > is your reaction to this? > Mr. Gold: Attorney-Client Privlege. Incomplete Hypothetical. Makes > for bad PR. > Q: Go ahead. > A: That doesn't seem so bad. DeCSS doesn't sound like a big deal. > Q: Have you ever watched a DVD? > A: I think that the law is very plain. Decrypting a DVD is a > violation of the law. Besides, I can't draw a legal conclusion. > Q: Did I just ask for a legal conclusion? > Mr Gold: Calls for a legal conclusion. > A: I can't draw a legal conclusion. > Q: There's something fishy going on here. ------------------------------------------------------ Jacobsen's Deposition > Q: What prompted the MPAA to begin investigating DeCSS? > Mr. Gold: Calls for speculation. Assumes facts not in evidence. > Attorney-client privlege. Will not look good in tomorrow's paper. > A: Well, Mr. Valenti kept going on and on at the office about > how people were using it to break into his house. ------------------------------------------------------- Attaway's Deposition > Q: Are you currently working to draft any new legislation? > A: Yes. > Q: What is the nature of that legislation? > Mr Gold: (sigh) > A: This legislation would make it illegal to break into Mr. > Valenti's home. > Q: Do you realize that, in general, what this law seeks to prevent > is already illegal? > A: Whatever Mr. Valenti wants, it is our job to provide it to him in > the form of a federal law. > Q: Who said: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?" > Mr. Gold: Assumes fictional characters not in evidence. > A: Mr. Spock did in The Wrath of Khan. > Q: I think that the even-numbered Star Trek movies are superlative > while the odd numbered ones are very poor. What do you think? > A: Except for the first one, of course. > Q: Of course. > Mr. Gold: Most of the earlier movies are so riddled with continuity > errors that I cannot stand to watch them. Also, this is getting into > attorney-client privlege. We had this discussion last week after a > Star Wars marathon when we got into this whole debate about which > series... > Q: Fine. Is The Wrath of Khan available on DVD? > A: Not yet, just the last 6 are out. > Q: Shall we go rent The Undiscovered Country, then? > Mr. Rose: I'll bring my action figures and spock ears. ----------------------------------------------------------- The preceeding was a parody, and contained no fact whatsoever (to the best of anyone's knowledge that was not present). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 17:00:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA15723 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:00:29 -0400 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA15720 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:00:27 -0400 Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:02:11 -0700 Received: from pchecker (pchecker.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.254.128]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 35-62055U1500L100S0V35) with SMTP id gov for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:02:11 -0700 Message-Id: <4.1.20000622134759.00a0da90@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: richard_hecker@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:06:47 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Richard A. Hecker" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD for Linux Illegal? [OT] 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 preceeding was a parody, and contained no fact whatsoever (to the >best of anyone's knowledge that was not present). Whoa! The nerves are a little sensitive at the moment and court documents filed by the MPAA contained equally outrageous contents. BTW, congratulations on the 7 miracle minute download explanation you provided to the court. I thought it was a Grand Slam when you pointed out it only takes 15 seconds to move the actual DVD disc from one machine to another ;-) Richard P.S. Kaplan has hinted that he could hold people accountable for a frivolous suit. Should we charge the MPAA more than $325/hour for technical data that is realistic? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 17:48:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA17699 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:48:40 -0400 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA17696 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:48:38 -0400 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id OAA10823 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost1.ia.nsc.com(147.5.200.40) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma010710; Thu, 22 Jun 00 14:50:26 -0700 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12900; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:50:21 -0600 From: "John Zulauf" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:52:35 -0600 Message-ID: <000e01bfdc94$2cf83dc0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> 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 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal 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 > I'm aware of the arguments that CSS is use control, not access control. > But I'm making a different argument entirely. I'm saying it may not be > access control, and moreover it may not be use control, either! I understand your point that the purpose of the CSS is to control the manufacturers -- but to what purpose? The purpose is to control use. The region coding, non-skippable, etc. are all imposed on the manufacturer by the CSS license (and encryption), but the true result to limit the end-users use. The copyright holder can then utilize the features imposed on the manufacturer to force me to watch a trailer, flying logo, or other video each and everytime I insert a disk into a player. In any case, whether or not it is use control is irrelevant. The statute refers only to TPM that "control access" which clearly CSS does not. Quoting myself: > There is no requirement to use a > smart-card, one-time use code, dial-up authorization or any other means to > authenticate my right-to-play my DVD. My right to play the disk is assumed > by the player (even if I have no actual right to view the disk -- i.e. I had > stolen the disk, or if it were a byte-for-byte stamped pirate copy). > Embodied into CSS are the "first sale" assumptions -- the user that holds > the disk has the right to view it. A system that assumes the authorization > to view of any media inserted into a player CANNOT be considered to be an > access control means, as no access control or authorization is performed. This I believe is the necessary and sufficient condition to inviolate any charge w.r.t. 1201. It is not a means to control access (as is Divx), therefore the statute doesn't apply. Use control vs. mfg. control is interesting but moot. Best Regards, John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 18:10:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA17936 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:10:40 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA17933 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:10:38 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA21943 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:05:07 -0500 Message-ID: <39528D84.ED533BAD@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:04:52 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking comments (revisited) 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 revised my comment with the help of listmembers and a good night's sleep. Feel free to read it at http://www.underwhelm.org/decss/comments2.txt and respond to me at moseng@mninter.net. Thanks again. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 20:11:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA18607 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:11:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (wseltzer@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA18604 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:11:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:11:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Wendy Seltzer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (recently OT) 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 Approved dvd-discuss.administer >From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 00:50:17 2000 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA09012 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:50:16 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA25156 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:52:10 -0500 Message-ID: <39519CF4.1342DA51@mninter.net> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:58:28 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (recently OT) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The Brill's content piece refers to quarter page advertsements which are > immediately distiquishable from the rest of the editorial page's copy. The > Jack Valenti piece was an Op-Ed piece, and not submitted for monetary > consideration. > The issue ads don't appear on the web site. Valenti's column does. (I > subscribe to the print edition) > > Jeremy Thanks for that clarification. This was exactly the distinction I could not make, not being a subscriber. Of course what this says about their editorial integrity anyway is left as an exercise for the reader. I'm not yet willing to cede that every publication has its price, or that paid interests should share in the edtiorial clout of an outlet, even if they are readily distinguished visually; especially if direct rebuttal is not published just as prominantly for free if reasonably asserted. Chris (unflinching) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 20:38:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA18953 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:38:56 -0400 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 UAA18950 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:38:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16551 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:52:41 -0700 From: Jim Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (recently OT) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:52:26 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29.2] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062216523815.25568@www.rjmconsulting.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu better change that password there, Wendy... On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Approved dvd-discuss.administer > > >From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 00:50:17 2000 > Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) > by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA09012 > for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:50:16 -0400 > Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) > by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA25156 > for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:52:10 -0500 > Message-ID: <39519CF4.1342DA51@mninter.net> > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:58:28 -0500 > From: Chris Moseng > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) > X-Accept-Language: en > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (recently OT) > References: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > The Brill's content piece refers to quarter page advertsements which are > > immediately distiquishable from the rest of the editorial page's copy. The > > Jack Valenti piece was an Op-Ed piece, and not submitted for monetary > > consideration. > > The issue ads don't appear on the web site. Valenti's column does. (I > > subscribe to the print edition) > > > > Jeremy > > Thanks for that clarification. This was exactly the distinction I could > not make, not being a subscriber. > > Of course what this says about their editorial integrity anyway is left > as an exercise for the reader. I'm not yet willing to cede that every > publication has its price, or that paid interests should share in the > edtiorial clout of an outlet, even if they are readily distinguished > visually; especially if direct rebuttal is not published just as > prominantly for free if reasonably asserted. > > Chris > (unflinching) -- Jim 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 Jun 22 20:53:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA19115 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:53:50 -0400 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 UAA19111 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:53:49 -0400 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 UAA04498 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000622205039.00c93c50@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:56:17 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] (no longer) Valenti Froths (now very OT) In-Reply-To: <00062216523815.25568@www.rjmconsulting.com> 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 04:52 PM 6/22/00 -0700, Jim Miller wrote: >better change that password there, Wendy... As I had before the message hit the list :-) Wouldn't want to be left with an ineffective access control device (or a way for infiltrators to add yet more volume). >On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, you wrote: > > Approved dvd-discuss.XXXXXXXXX Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 23 02:28:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA21988 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:28:25 -0400 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 CAA21985 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:28:24 -0400 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 XAA09496 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:28:19 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04193; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:04:58 -0700 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] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Date: 22 Jun 2000 22:04:48 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 41 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8iur5g$42t$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <000e01bfdc94$2cf83dc0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <000e01bfdc94$2cf83dc0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>, John Zulauf wrote: > I understand your point that the purpose of the CSS is to control the > manufacturers -- but to what purpose? The purpose is to control use. The > region coding, non-skippable, etc. are all imposed on the manufacturer by > the CSS license (and encryption), but the true result to limit the end-users > use. The copyright holder can then utilize the features imposed on the > manufacturer to force me to watch a trailer, flying logo, or other video > each and everytime I insert a disk into a player. Sure. Those extra features might control our use of the DVD. But then maybe we should be calling those extra features (and not CSS) the 'use control' mechanism, eh? (If there is indeed any 'use control' mechanism whatsoever on the DVD player, that is.) After all, what's CSS got to do with it? Nothing. If CSS is about controlling manufacturers, it's not about access, and it seems that it could not be about use, either. Or so the argument might go, in any case. Am I missing some rebuttal to this argument? Note: Please don't read this the wrong way. Some people have suggested that the dichotomy between access control and use control is important to keep in mind, and that CSS may not be access control because it appears to be use control. That's well and fine, and I am not trying to argue against such a position. Instead, I'm taking that style of argument even one step further. I'm suggesting that there are not just two types of control mechanism; there's a third, namely, manufacturer control. So, we can argue like this: 1. CSS is use control and thus not access control; and, 2. If CSS is not considered use control, it should be considered manufacturer control and thus not access control. If you accept 1., then the manufacturer control point (2.) is moot; but, even if you don't accept 1., then there is still a second, independent argument which says that CSS may not be access control. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 23 03:03:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA22244 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:03:36 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA22241 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:03:34 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA03024 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:05:40 -0500 Message-ID: <39530BB2.F333C427@mninter.net> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:03:14 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] post hearing comments (final) 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 submitted the final version of my post-hearing comments to the LOC. You can read them at http://www.underwhelm.org/decss/Moseng_Comments.pdf Thanks again, listmembers, for the assistance. I believe the points are clear and effective, and entirely in our favor (except the implication that we will have to battle PPU systems on their own merits instead of preventing their existance through the rulemaking. Can't win 'em all.) Chris (done) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 23 10:29:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25253 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:29:26 -0400 Received: from dial197.roadrunner.com (dial197.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.197] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25250 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:29:23 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial197.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA00681 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:32:08 -0600 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:32:07 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is CSS manufacturer control, not access control? Message-ID: <20000623083207.A492@localhost> References: <000e01bfdc94$2cf83dc0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> <8iur5g$42t$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <8iur5g$42t$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu>; from daw@cs.berkeley.edu on Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 10:04:48PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 10:04:48PM -0700, David A. Wagner wrote: > In article <000e01bfdc94$2cf83dc0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>, > John Zulauf wrote: > > I understand your point that the purpose of the CSS is to control the > > manufacturers -- but to what purpose? The purpose is to control use. The > > region coding, non-skippable, etc. are all imposed on the manufacturer by > > the CSS license (and encryption), but the true result to limit the end-users > > use. The copyright holder can then utilize the features imposed on the > > manufacturer to force me to watch a trailer, flying logo, or other video > > each and everytime I insert a disk into a player. > > Sure. Those extra features might control our use of the DVD. But then > maybe we should be calling those extra features (and not CSS) the > 'use control' mechanism, eh? (If there is indeed any 'use control' > mechanism whatsoever on the DVD player, that is.) After all, what's > CSS got to do with it? Nothing. > > If CSS is about controlling manufacturers, it's not about access, and > it seems that it could not be about use, either. > > Or so the argument might go, in any case. > > Am I missing some rebuttal to this argument? > > > Note: > Please don't read this the wrong way. Some people have suggested that > the dichotomy between access control and use control is important to > keep in mind, and that CSS may not be access control because it appears > to be use control. That's well and fine, and I am not trying to argue > against such a position. > > Instead, I'm taking that style of argument even one step further. > I'm suggesting that there are not just two types of control mechanism; > there's a third, namely, manufacturer control. > > So, we can argue like this: 1. CSS is use control and thus not access > control; and, 2. If CSS is not considered use control, it should be > considered manufacturer control and thus not access control. If you > accept 1., then the manufacturer control point (2.) is moot; but, even if > you don't accept 1., then there is still a second, independent argument > which says that CSS may not be access control. Manufacturer control stems from the secrecy of the algorithm. That doesn't necessarily mean that CSS isn't access control, even if it is so badly designed as to fail one or more of the tests necessary to be considered "effective". Nimmer's preferred def'n of access puts it before use, which is consistent with your use/access distinction. Note that Peter Junger may have something to say about what constitutes access for the purposes of section 1201, and it might very well be different from the above suggestion. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 23 13:56:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27766 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:56:39 -0400 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27763 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:56:37 -0400 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id KAA05421 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost1.ia.nsc.com(147.5.200.40) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma005032; Fri, 23 Jun 00 10:58:02 -0700 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA03511; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:58:01 -0600 From: "John Zulauf" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:00:06 -0600 Message-ID: <000501bfdd3c$dd2aa900$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> 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 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal 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 >> He's not saying (I think) that letting them prepare a legal defense >> in advance is bad for the test case, but that letting the prospective >> defendants alter their behavior beforehand is risky. > >That's what I figured too ... but since the goal of the lawsuit >would be to get them to alter their behavior, wouldn't the result >be the same. If you are planning to bust a crack house which is operating openly on a street, you don't want to advertise that bust. The only behavior you will change is the obvious nature of the activity, and the known location of it. Not useful if want you want to do is to arrest the perpetrators and stop the traffic. Think it another way. When you go to squash a fly you use a flyswatter -- the holes it the mesh prevent the fly from knowing what's coming, and the handle allows you to deliver the blow more quickly. It's not fair or open but it does eliminate the fly. With the DVD CAA, MPAA et. al. you have a dedicated, deep-pocketed opponent --vigourously opposed the concepts of open source. Telegraphing your actions may allow them to retreat, and retrench -- like the crack house, or simple buzz away annoyingly to fight again -- well funded to do so. One more anology. With antibiotics, you don't go with a insufficient dose -- all that does is breed better baterium. Now that "the games afoot" is not the time to go for half-measures based on the telegraphing of a strategy. If some feel that a closed approach (the crack house raid) is better -- more power to them. The rest of us can carry on an open neighborhood protest. If our protest provides the location of the crackhouse to those they take it down by force... all the better. These can be complimentary roles -- the open and the closed. The artillery declares it's location when if fires (as it cannot avoid doing so), the sniper uses a silencer. Let's not give in to school boy fair-play of requiring the sniper to warn the enemy ("Pardon me old boy, but would you mind terribly if I fired on you from my place of concealment over here?" -- is nearly Python-esque) -- certainly when the enemy has no such compunction. Open law arguments, and closed source legal actions based on them both have there place in this fight. Let's not turn this into another GPL v. BSD cage match, huh? John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 23 14:29:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28531 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:29:46 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28528 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:29:44 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27872 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:31:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3953AE8C.949B3887@mninter.net> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:38:04 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (revisited) 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 written a reply to the Valenti Op-Ed. If the list finds it useful we may want to adopt some or all of it to refute Mr. Valenti in the Times. If we choose to make use of this, please find some replacement for the self-aggrandizing I did as it would not fit in a community drafted response. This was written for publication in the Mpls. Star Tribune which reprinted Mr. Valenti's commentary. If this would be best published and edited on CVS, please let me know where to get to it and how to start using it :) I'm not a programmer, but I'd like to see the CVS system in action. http://www.underwhelm.org/decss/valentiresponse.txt Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings from a fellow marauder. If you thought you recognized yourself or someone you knew in Jack Valenti's recent commentary on internet piracy (June 22), you are more right than you think. His op-ed piece continues the regular pattern of media conglomerates using their time-worn chicken little "piracy" gag about every new medium to come down the pike. What they don't want you to know is that whenever they are talking about pirates, marauders, or thieves, they are talking about you. The grim fact is that every time the motion picture or recording industry gets a new law passed to prevent piracy, the latest being the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), you lose. You lose the ability to make a dub to bring in your car. You lose the ability to have a spare around in case the original gets scratched. You lose the ability to fast forward past things a movie studio insists that you watch. According to testimony by Mr. Valenti, you lose the ability to use any part of the recorded work in a classroom. What used to be rights are now abilities to be sacrificed. All these sacrifices to protect copyright holders against pirates? Against internet pirates? Mr. Valenti and the MPAA consistently overstate the threat of internet piracy, even in federal court. One of their experts claims it is currently possible to transmit a movie from one computer to another using commodity parts in seven minutes. It is not. As stated in my declaration to the court (Universal et. al. v. Corley), on a network 2000 times the speed of a standard dial-up connection to the internet, it takes over 60 minutes. Would you spend even 100 times that long waiting to download a movie, doing nothing else with your computer or phone line and filling up your hard drive completely? Never mind answering that, because the fact that you can do it at all makes you a pirate. And the movie studios have developed what they see as an adequate "legal and technical means" (a quotation from MPAA Sr. V.P. for Government Relations, Fritz Attaway) to inhibit your natural proclivity for piracy. These legal and technical means (the DMCA and CSS, respectively) allow a movie studio to sell you a DVD, for example, but retain the right to tell you how to use it. Instead of selling you a disc with a movie on it, they are selling you a disc with a lockbox on it with a movie inside it. You own the disc, and the studio owns the lockbox, the key and the movie. If you behave and constrain yourself to studio-approved uses, perhaps the man from the MPAA hidden in your DVD player's software will let you use his key and watch it. Then again, even that might be illegal in some circumstances, thanks to the vagueness of the DMCA. Mr. Valenti did have one thing right, we as a society must take control of the keys that control the uses of copyrighted works. We must take them back from sociopathic entities like the MPAA. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 23 16:53:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA29733 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:53:44 -0400 Received: from dial235.roadrunner.com (sf-du235.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.235]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA29730 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:53:42 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial235.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02107 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:56:31 -0600 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:56:30 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] NY Times linking injunction article Message-ID: <20000623145630.A2079@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Don't remember seeing this one mentioned: From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 23 18:20:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA30846 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:20:28 -0400 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 SAA30843 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:20:27 -0400 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA30137 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:22:45 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:22:45 -0500 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] FAQ- Who exactly are defendants? Message-ID: <20000623172245.A30104@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 1.0.1us Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu A question has arisen between the FAQ team about who, precisely, the defendants are in the NY case. Originally, the defendants listed on the original summons were: SHAWN C. REIMERDES; ERIC CORLEY A/K/A "EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN"; AND ROMAN KAZAN On March 22, Wendy posted a message here that said: jya sent this to Cyberia: >Two of the three defendants in the New York MPAA case have >withdrawn by way of consent judgements, leaving only "2600" >which succeeds its publisher, Emmanuel Goldstein, as defendant. > >Martin Garbus has joined the defense team, and represented >the defense at a hearing Monday before Judge Kaplan at which >a trial date of December 5 was set." I cannot find any documents that confirm this. Recent documents from the defendants list the defendants as: ERIC CORLEY a/k/a EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN and 2600 ENTERPRISES While recent documents from the plaintiffs list defendants as: SHAWN C. REIMERDES, ERIC CORLEY A/K/A "EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN", ROMAN KAZAN, AND 2600 ENTERPRISES, INC. So, given these four different collections of possible defendants: 1. Reimerdes, Corley, Goldstein 2. Goldstein 3. Goldstein, 2600 4. Reimerdes, Corley, Goldstein, 2600 Which list is correct? This is for the FAQ, so I'd rather be as precise as possible. Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 23 18:50:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA31075 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:50:59 -0400 Received: from ts0210.bates.edu (root@ts0211.bates.edu [134.181.72.141]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA31072 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:50:55 -0400 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by ts0210.bates.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01063 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:54:31 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: ts0210.bates.edu: sam owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:54:31 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FAQ- Who exactly are defendants? In-Reply-To: <20000623172245.A30104@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, 23 Jun 2000, Eric Seppanen wrote: > A question has arisen between the FAQ team about who, precisely, the > defendants are in the NY case. > The orignal defendants list was: Plaintiffs, v. SHAWN C. REIMERDES; ERIC CORLEY A/K/A "EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN"; AND ROMAN KAZAN, Defendants. Then Kazan and Reimerdes both acceppted consent decrees [1][2] and are no longer parties. Along the way, 2600 Enterprises was added as a defendant (also in [2]). [1]http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-rk.htm [2]http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-nm.htm sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 23 18:51:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA31156 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:51:59 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA31153 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:51:58 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (jeffw@firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA18249 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:54:14 -0400 Message-ID: <3953EA62.6614C324@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:53:22 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.16 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes References: <000501bfdd3c$dd2aa900$87ce0593@ia.nsc.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 John Zulauf wrote: > >> He's not saying (I think) that letting them prepare a legal defense > >> in advance is bad for the test case, but that letting the prospective > >> defendants alter their behavior beforehand is risky. > > > >That's what I figured too ... but since the goal of the lawsuit > >would be to get them to alter their behavior, wouldn't the result > >be the same. > > If you are planning to bust a crack house which is operating openly on a > street, you don't want to advertise that bust. The only behavior you will > change is the obvious nature of the activity, and the known location of it. > Not useful if want you want to do is to arrest the perpetrators and stop the > traffic. Think it another way. When you go to squash a fly you use a > flyswatter -- the holes it the mesh prevent the fly from knowing what's > coming, and the handle allows you to deliver the blow more quickly. It's > not fair or open but it does eliminate the fly. > [ ...] > > With the DVD CAA, MPAA et. al. you have a dedicated, deep-pocketed > opponent --vigourously opposed the concepts of open source. Telegraphing > your actions may allow them to retreat, and retrench -- like the crack > house, or simple buzz away annoyingly to fight again -- well funded to do > so. > > One more anology. With antibiotics, you don't go with a insufficient > dose -- all that does is breed better baterium. Now that "the games afoot" > is not the time to go for half-measures based on the telegraphing of a > [ ... ] The problem I have with these analogies is that they resemble the crafting of a test case only on the surface. Raiding crack houses and spraying bugs with malathione are really not at all like bringing a case before the Supreme court. To speak more plainly. Are you worried that the potential bad guys might use some loophole and get the case thrown out based on the facts? In that case they'd just do that next time. Are you worried that they might find a better defense given a head start? I have 4 things to say 1) I bet they could ask for a very long time to prepare anyway (1 year). 2) Your victory might be based on a narrow interpretation of the facts that will be amended to your detriment next time -- you may be assured the MPAA will attack will redoubled force next time. 3) I think judges are not bound to such a narrow and swift reading of the law as has been protrayed on TV (LA Law); apparently there can be all sorts of interplay, press coverage, briefs, during which time both parties have ample time to manuver. 4) Maybe you're actually wrong; I don't think that the point is to win or loose, but to do right. So go out there and win one for the gipper, rah, rah, rah. -Jeff From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 23 21:09:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA00526 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:09:49 -0400 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA00523 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:09:48 -0400 Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:11:31 -0700 Received: from pchecker (pchecker.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.254.128]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 35-62055U1500L100S0V35) with SMTP id gov for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:11:34 -0700 Message-Id: <4.1.20000623175815.00a18a40@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: richard_hecker@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:16:13 -0700 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Richard A. Hecker" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Lawyers running amok? 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 Hi; I have been making another pass throught the Jacobsen deposition part 2. The following response on page 228 caught my eye and made me wonder if this is their strategy. 2 A. I can tell you only that the 3 determination of "fair use" is something that has 4 to be described or made by lawyers. And if, in 5 fact, fair use is applicable, then the use of the 6 product within that limited scope of fair use is 7 not illegal, to my understanding. Other depositions contain frequent claims of attorney/client privilege. They basically claim that the attorneys were used for investigative purposes. So I apologize if this matter has been discussed already, but I have some questions. Are the lawyers defining MPAA policy as they go? Are the lawyers manufacturing a case without prior data? Are the lawyers attempting to create new protections by litigation that were not previously granted by law? I know the courts have been used to strike down bad laws that were passed. But I cannot recall hearing the converse. I wonder if this whole mess is an attempt to create a law that does not exist ;-) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 24 13:22:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA05546 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:22:37 -0400 Received: from web512.mail.yahoo.com (web512.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA05543 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:22:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20000624172427.9977.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.28.154.44] by web512.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:24:27 PDT Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:24:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (revisited) 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 --- Chris Moseng wrote: > If this would be best published and edited on CVS, please let me know > where to get to it and how to start using it :) > > I'm not a programmer, but I'd like to see the CVS system in action. I've been trying to think of how to get started using CVS. I think the first thing we put in should be small and not have an urgent deadline. This may be a good candidate, although I am going to be gone until monday, so the timing may not be good. I am a beginner with CVS too, so one critical thing is that the first project be a "low stress" item, so we can learn how to work with CVS. Basically, CVS would work like this for us: we start with a draft or outline or something and check it in. Other people can check out a copy using any operating system that supports CVS (windows and unix/linux are included). For windows, you'd have to install it. Aanonymous read access will be allowed, but you need a password to check in modified versions. If you don't have this, you can email or post your suggestions just like we are doing now, and at least you had a convenient way to get the most recent version. When you check a module out, you basically get a directory on your machine with copies of all the files for the project (preferably text based). You work with them as if they had nothing to do with CVS, but when your done, you check them back in. Several people can edit the same document indepently. When someone is ready, they "check in" and there changes are applied. When the next person is ready, they check in and CVS will check for conflicts in the changes. If there are none, everything will work and both changes will be applied. If there are, then the second person will have to make adjustments accordingly. Here are some basic references for CVS: http://www.cyclic.com/CVS/index_html http://cvsbook.red-bean.com/cvsbook.html Somebody's page on using CVS under windows: http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/jcn/documentation/wincvs.html I'll be back monday and will look at pushing it forward then. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jun 24 13:55:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA05976 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:55:44 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA05973 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:55:43 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA22832 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:57:51 -0500 Message-ID: <3954F6E1.54A145E8@mninter.net> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:58:57 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD Pay Par Use 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 See this article on DVDFile.com about a manufacturer that wishes to sell Divx-like DVDs for a low-low-price. http://www.dvdfile.com/news/editorial/archive/2000/6_19_25.htm#6/20/2000 *This* is exactly the sort of thing that the MPAA can and would latch onto in this trial and in fighting exempting DVDs from exemption of 1201(a). Even if they never actually used it. It's a rental, but it's a purchase. The disc becomes worthless literally while you watch it. If CSS is vulnerable, the studios might argue, the movies are even cheaper to "pirate". Of course, all the same counter arguments to all CSS-based copying still apply. If you ask me, the company providing this "product" has only one place to go--down in flames. It has all the bad parts of DIVX, all the weaknesses of the DVD spec, and 0 studio support. What movie studio would fall for this gag? Well, you tell me. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 25 13:01:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA13361 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:01:25 -0400 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 NAA13358 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:01:22 -0400 Received: from ip79.bedford.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.9.79]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 136Fov-0007AS-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:03:46 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] NY Times letters re Valenti Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:57:48 -0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 NAA13359 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Two letters responding to the Valenti column-- http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l25val.html To the Editor: Jack Valenti, chairman of the Motion Picture Association, asks, "If copyright can no longer protect the distribution of the work they produce, who will invest immense sums to create films or any other creative material of the kind we now take for granted?" (Op-Ed, June 21). There are many ways other than copyrights to support creative and artistic work. Just to give one example, the country could establish an individual tax credit dedicated for this purpose. Such a tax credit would be a much less serious government intervention in the market than arresting people for possessing software that reproduces copyrighted material. DEAN BAKER Washington, June 21, 2000 The writer is co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research. To the Editor: Jack Valenti, chairman of the Motion Picture Association, calls the movie industry's attacks on the Internet good for artists and America (Op-Ed, June 21). The Internet empowers artists to take control from the studios over ownership of their creations, how the works get distributed and how the artists are compensated. Rather than redefine itself in the digital world, the industry is fighting all new models for music and movie distribution. The Motion Picture Association has sued to stop software that helps play legally purchased DVD's on personal computers, Web links to the software and a virtual VCR. (We are helping to represent several defendants in these lawsuits.) These attacks harm artists and their fans, because works are not being legitimately distributed online. Our First Amendment rights are being eroded to protect a few large companies' interests. SHARI STEELE San Francisco, June 21, 2000 The writer is executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties group. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 25 16:21:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14441 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:21:17 -0400 Received: from dial121.roadrunner.com (dial121.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.121] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14438 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:21:14 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial121.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01733 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:24:05 -0600 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:24:04 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.9 Message-ID: <20000625142403.A1716@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Q.9: OpenLaw's answer to the MPAA: One has to wonder how much the MPAA truely needs access protection measures to protect their works. Music CDs are unprotected digital medium, however they continue to experiance unprecidented sales. In any event, preventing piracy is not a good enough reason to deny the public fair use of copyrighted medium. I think I know where this last sentence wants to go, but I don't think it clearly states the basis for its position. The stated purpose of the copyright clause is to promote progress. Exclusive rights are to be granted with the aim of promoting progress. The MPAA position seems to be (protestations to the contrary not withstanding) that it can do more or less anything to protect exclusive rights, even if that means _hampering_ progress by restricting access to works that have already been published. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 25 16:23:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14528 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:23:24 -0400 Received: from dial121.roadrunner.com (dial121.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.121] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14525 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:23:21 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial121.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01742 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:26:17 -0600 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:26:15 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.20 Message-ID: <20000625142614.A1736@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu All copyright owners must allow uses to access their works for three reasons: * Fair Use * First Sale * Copyright Expiration CSS prevents all of these lawful activities from taking place. Should probably read, "CSS in conjunction with the (secret?) licensing terms imposed by the DVD-CCA prevent all of these lawful activities from taking place." Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 25 17:24:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA14758 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:24:32 -0400 Received: from orange.fenimore.org (sf-du241.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA14755 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:24:14 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial121.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01809 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:40:49 -0600 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:40:48 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.22 Message-ID: <20000625144047.A1747@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu OpenLaw's answer to the MPAA: There is no legal basis for controlling the DVD market in this way. In fact, several countries have made region coding illegal. Under the strictest sense of the law, the purchase of a DVD gives you the right for "Home Viewing" - no geographical limitations are present in the law. Thus, you have the right to view any DVD you purchase. If customers choose to view movies in their home rather than viewing them on the "big screen", then that is what consumers want! MPAA, welcome to capitolism. capitolism ==> capitalism I'm looking for the source of the New Zealand rumor, but I can't find it. I'm not sure what countries (if any) have banned region coding. I searched the dvd-discuss archive, and didn't find any citations. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jun 25 17:39:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA14895 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:39:46 -0400 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 RAA14892 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:39:45 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 136K9F-00033p-00 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:41:01 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:41:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.20 In-Reply-To: <20000625142614.A1736@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 So modified. Another question has come up on #20 - Is "All copyright owners must allow uses to access their works for three reasons" - an accurate statement? If so, can we provide a citation to that effect? It has come to my attention that although these accesses are considered legal, providing such access is not necessarily a responsibility of the copyright owner. On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > All copyright owners must allow uses to access their works for three > reasons: > * Fair Use > * First Sale > * Copyright Expiration > > CSS prevents all of these lawful activities from taking place. > > > Should probably read, "CSS in conjunction with the (secret?) licensing > terms imposed by the DVD-CCA prevent all of these lawful activities > from taking place." > > > Paul Fenimore > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:57:48 -0400 Received: from tim (helo=localhost) by draco.tneu.visi.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 136KQf-0003Yy-00 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:59:01 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:59:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA DVD FAQ In-Reply-To: <20000625142614.A1736@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 A new version of the document has been posted today. (http://www.visi.com/~tneu/mpaafaq.html) This includes LOTS of spelling/grammar fixes. (thanks to Lev Makhlis) >From 6/30 until 7/17, my ability to post new additions and changes to the document will be very limited. I'm wondering if it might be time to set this document up in CVS, or to allow someone else to manage the document until July 17th. If we don't do that, any changes to the document would have to wait until July 17th before they would be posted. (which I wouldn't mind - but would cause a delay in getting the rebuttal ready for prime time) What do you all think? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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 / <_/ / / < / (_; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 02:55:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q6vgM29143 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:57:43 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:57:42 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match In-Reply-To: <000901bfd8a4$7ab23a00$1b23a0d2@vaio> 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, 18 Jun 2000, Robert Wilde wrote: >One could quibble that one has to make 3 purchases; the movie, the DVD >decryption, and the physical DVD drive. For a stand-alone player, of >course, the decruption is bundled with the hardware. The Attaway wording is just fine for our purposes, since not maintaining the distinction between decryption tech/drive can be used to argue purchasing the drive gives us authorization, per se. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 03:08:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA17804 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:08:13 -0400 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 DAA17801 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:08:09 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 136T2R-0005Hj-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:10:35 +0200 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:10:35 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.22 In-Reply-To: <20000625144047.A1747@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 Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > I'm looking for the source of the New Zealand rumor, but I can't find it. > I'm not sure what countries (if any) have banned region coding. I > searched the dvd-discuss archive, and didn't find any citations. > > Paul Fenimore In Europe I don't think this is an issue. The region coding scheme is being seriously eroded, with up to 80% of all players in some countries ( UK ) being sold "region free". Other players allow macrovision to be easily disabled. The irony of this is that the police here in Norway will bring JJ in for questioning for "breaking a protection", while most stores in Oslo _openly_ sell DVD players, with most of the same "protections" broken. 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 Jun 26 03:10:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA17901 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:10:39 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA17898 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:10:37 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q7D2T01313 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:13:03 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:13:02 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match In-Reply-To: <394C6045.F73B1B69@mninter.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, 18 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: >It would be like printing all your books in invisible ink, and making >people purchase the magic marker separately. This creates a market for >your magic markers, and gives you a new monopoly. Sounds as much like a >violation of anti-trust as I can imagine. People have mentioned cases >involving Morton Salt and US v. Paramount as precedent for this. But in our case the markets for movies and players are strictly separate. I think it will be very difficult to show tying when the goods alledgedly being tied originate from two completely disjoint sets of companies. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 03:25:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA17997 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:25:40 -0400 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 DAA17993 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:25:38 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 136TJM-0005TC-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:28:04 +0200 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:28:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DMCA loophole 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 The Macrovision portions of 1201, only apply to analog video equipment. This provides a loophole the size of Texas in the law. Theoritcaly a _digital_ consumer video recorder/player would not have to respond to the Macrovision signal. If such a player, when brought to marked allows digital -> digital copying, the whole spectre of MPAAs horrors will unfold. Digital, no generational loss copying of DVDs. Except it would be legal under the DMCA for all fair uses. 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 Jun 26 03:29:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA18113 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:29:46 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA18110 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:29:44 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q7W8Y03710 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:32:08 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:32:06 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match In-Reply-To: <000301bfd923$06153880$d502fea9@oemcomputer> 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, 18 Jun 2000, Doug Hudson wrote: >The MPAA, as a trade organization, hasn't commited a (chargeable) antitrust >violation. RICO violation, maybe (this is a sarcastic jest, and for MPAA >eyes reading this, I am in no way accusing the MPAA of committing two >predicate acts for a RICO charge). G'damn. That's one rude jest. ;) >Antitrust/misuse: When you try to create IP rights out of thin air, that is >when you run the risk of copyright misuse. If the MPAA were found to have >committed copyright misuse, the copyright in the underlying work would be >rendered unenforceable until the misuse is remedied. In this case, that >could mean they could not enforce access controls under 1201 until they >narrowed the scope, or, ironically, they could temporarily lose the right to >enforce the copyright on the underlying works. Wouldn't that be a great PR >gift, and a welcome outcome to the case? Could you cite? Both for copyright misuse and the sanction. This is getting interesting. >How would CNN report that? :) Dripping sarcasm would be too benign a guess, I think. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 03:39:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA18225 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:39:49 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA18220 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:39:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q7gDF05006 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:42:13 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:42:12 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ReCSS NonInf. Use -:P 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, 18 Jun 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: >> else. In order to "ReCSS", we would have to take a known title >> key and encrypt the content. This could be a bad thing, >> depending on how pissed off they get for using a licensed key. >> Without using a licensed key, the data would not playback. > >I don't know much about law, but I wonder in how far one >single number would be an enforcable secret... I'd say it might be a trade secret, but it cannot be a valid copyrightable work and hence cannot be protected by 1201 once it's put out on DVD, encrypted or not. And if the key is discovered through valid RE (Frank Stevenson's cryptanalysis certainly fulfils the criteria, I should think), well, in this case the trade secret simply isn't secret anymore. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 04:48:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA19054 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:48:02 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA19051 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:47:56 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q8oLM15212 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:50:21 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:50:20 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] rulemaking hearing quotes In-Reply-To: <20000620171842.Q15588@zork.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 Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: >It would help to have a nice explanation of why the copyright holders >ought to have the burden of proof (if anticircumvention laws are to >exist at all!) -- not under 1201 but in general. I think the public subsidy, to-Promote-the-Progress angle should cut it, at least in PR/layman circles... Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 05:24:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA19300 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:24:39 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA19297 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:24:37 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q9R3X20695 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:27:03 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:27:02 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Generational loss, was: Digital Copy of DVD via SDI interface 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, 21 Jun 2000, steve bryan wrote: >>In theory it should be possible to write an reencoder that would produce an >>MPEG-2 stream identical to the original given the decomressped data and the >>knowledge that it cane from an existing MPEG-2 stream, but the process would >>probably be prone to errors > >There is more than one reason this claim is inaccurate. First, there >is almost no chance that a decompressed MPEG-2 stream will recreate >the original stream. Don't forget that DVD's tend to use about 40 to >1 or 50 to 1 compression ratios. I think the quoted post was about reconstructing the MPEG-2 bitstream after decoding it to pure raster data. I think this should, in some respects, be easier than starting with the original raster data. This particular problem isn't as much a problem of compression but a one of recognizing compression artifacts and inverse decoding based on those. For instance, estimating P frame motion vectors by iteratively fitting 16x16 pixel blocks from a previous frame to the next, searching for a bit accurate match (in contrast with a fuzzy best match which is what MPEG-2 compressors do). It's just that this sort of thing wouldn't normally have any use. As for bit-accurate reproduction, I concur. Total inversion probably will not be possible. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 06:08:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA19588 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:08:57 -0400 Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA19585 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:08:56 -0400 Received: from ajimtayvaldo (user-2inib0d.dsl.mindspring.com [165.121.44.13]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA15791 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:11:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Taylor" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DMCA loophole Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:11:20 -0700 Message-ID: <000e01bfdf56$e06fad60$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > The Macrovision portions of 1201, only apply to analog video equipment. True, although today most DV camcorders and decks, as well as many computer capture cards, check for Macrovision on analog inputs. Try copying a DVD to DV -- the recorder will state that it's protected and refuse to copy. > If such a player, when brought to marked allows digital -> digital copying At that point you're completely out of the realm of Macrovision, and there will be some sort of digital copy protection mechanism in place, which will be covered by the DMCA. -- Jim Taylor Author of DVD Demystified and the DVD FAQ -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Frank Andrew Stevenson Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:28 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DMCA loophole The Macrovision portions of 1201, only apply to analog video equipment. This provides a loophole the size of Texas in the law. Theoritcaly a _digital_ consumer video recorder/player would not have to respond to the Macrovision signal. If such a player, when brought to marked allows digital -> digital copying, the whole spectre of MPAAs horrors will unfold. Digital, no generational loss copying of DVDs. Except it would be legal under the DMCA for all fair uses. 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 Jun 26 06:18:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA19737 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:18:44 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA19734 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:18:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5QAL8d28638 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:21:08 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:21:07 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti Froths (revisited) In-Reply-To: <3953AE8C.949B3887@mninter.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, 23 Jun 2000, Chris Moseng wrote: Nitpicking to follow: >Greetings from a fellow marauder. If you thought you recognized yourself >or someone you knew in Jack Valenti's recent commentary on internet piracy >(June 22), you are more right than you think. You address this to a geek who knows what's up. >His op-ed piece continues the regular pattern of media conglomerates >using their time-worn chicken little "piracy" gag about every new medium to >come down the pike. What they don't want you to know is that whenever they >are talking about pirates, marauders, or thieves, they are talking about >you. But go on to use the classic oh-but-that's-you tactic. Otherwise it's got a nice tang to it. ;) Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 06:21:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA19830 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:21:33 -0400 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 GAA19827 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:21:32 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 136W3a-0003XF-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:23:58 +0200 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:23:58 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DMCA loophole In-Reply-To: <000e01bfdf56$e06fad60$6401a8c0@redmond.corp.microsoft.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, 26 Jun 2000, Jim Taylor wrote: > > If such a player, when brought to marked allows digital -> digital copying > > At that point you're completely out of the realm of Macrovision, and there > will be some sort of digital copy protection mechanism in place, which will > be covered by the DMCA. But there is nothing in the DMCA that would compell developers of _new_ DV standards to include copy protection in the standard. As such systems are based on flawed notions ( copy protection is not technologically feasable ) they become complex and expensive beasts to build and deploy. Betamax was fielded without any copy protection mechanism, and it seems possible that future systems could be made without any copy protection. Content providers may balk at such products, but they still will have many attractive legitimaty uses, ex. time shifting / TiVo. 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 Jun 26 09:14:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA21360 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:14:15 -0400 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 JAA21357 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:14:14 -0400 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 136Yki-0001L6-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:16:40 +0200 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:16:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DMCA loophole 2 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 Sony will launch itself against TiVo this summer when it will challenge the digital video recorder pioneer in Japan with a machine of its own. This despite the fact that Sony US is a TiVO technology licensee. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/11583.html Are these devicec Macroviosion sensetive, do they have a vidoe in, and digital out ? Is this a new Betamax case in the making ? 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 Jun 26 12:17:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA23019 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:17:51 -0400 Received: from web512.mail.yahoo.com (web512.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA23016 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:17:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20000626161945.14613.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web512.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:19:45 PDT Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:19:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] What's up with Johansen? 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'm just curious if anybody knows anything more about Johansen's status. I don't understand Norway's law (hell, I don't understand US law), but it seems like if they questioned and released him and 6 months go by with no charges that you can infer there is no crime as a matter of law, since the basic facts are not in dispute (he freely admits posting it). I don't think it's accurate to say he was "arrested" unless charges were filed, which to my understanding, did not happen. It appears he was questioned and released. Frank, is there any equivalent of a "statue of limitations" in Norway, that is, a time limit on how long the police have to charge you with a crime? --- Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > The irony of this is that the police here in Norway > will bring JJ in for questioning for "breaking a protection", while > most stores in Oslo _openly_ sell DVD players, with most of the same > "protections" broken. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 12:24:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA23163 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:24:19 -0400 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA23160 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:24:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20000626162613.17013.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:26:13 PDT Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:26:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match 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: > >Antitrust/misuse: When you try to create IP rights out of thin air, > >that is when you run the risk of copyright misuse. If the MPAA > >were found to have committed copyright misuse, the copyright in > >the underlying work would be rendered unenforceable until the > >misuse is remedied. In this case, that could mean they could > >not enforce access controls under 1201 until they narrowed the > >scope, or, ironically, they could temporarily lose the right to > >enforce the copyright on the underlying works. Wouldn't that be a > >great PR gift, and a welcome outcome to the case? > > Could you cite? Both for copyright misuse and the sanction. This is > getting interesting. Here's some cases I've run across on IP misuse: Copyright LASERCOMB AMERICA, INC. V. REYNOLDS, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990) DSC COMMUNS. CORP. V. DGI TECHS., 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996) Patent Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 (1913) Use jurisline to get the first two and findlaw for the third. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 14:38:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA24774 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:38:47 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA24771 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:38:46 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA03200 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:41:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:41:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: DVD discussion Subject: [dvd-discuss] request 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 Hi - A brief request to folks on the list: If you have time, please put on your "devil's advocate/technical expert for the MPAA" hat, and review the declaration I submitted in support of the motion to vacate and cross-motion to dismiss. What questions would you direct the lawyers to ask, if you wanted to discredit me as a source of information, and/or poke holes in the things I assert? Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 14:57:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA25009 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:57:43 -0400 Received: from shaft.bitmine.net (root@shaft.bitmine.net [216.231.58.163]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA25006 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:57:42 -0400 Received: from localhost (jbrelin@localhost) by shaft.bitmine.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) with ESMTP id LAA17139 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:59:52 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:59:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeme A Brelin X-Sender: jbrelin@shaft.bitmine.net To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Game, set, match 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, 26 Jun 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > But in our case the markets for movies and players are strictly separate. I > think it will be very difficult to show tying when the goods alledgedly > being tied originate from two completely disjoint sets of companies. Completley disjoint? What are you talking about? Let's get things in perspective here. The famous Betamax decision was Sony v. Universal, et al. (essentially the MPAA, if not the MPAA in name). Universal, et al. wanted the blank video tape and VTR manufacturers to pay royalties and for a copy protection mechanism to be built into the technical spec. Sony fought this because it would increase the domestic cost and practical usefulness of their equipment and decrease their revenue. Sony did not fight this because they are great defenders of free speech, fair use, or copyright violation. In 1992, the ridiculous Audio Home Recording Act was passed. This essentially put the same restrictions on digital audio recording that the Universal, et al. attempted to put on video tape in the early eighties. So why didn't Sony, easily the largest and most lucrative manufacturer of digital audio recording equipment, fight the AHRA on the same terms as the Betamax case? Easy. Because between 1981 and 1992 Sony acquired Columbia Pictures/Records. Sony, the great defender of fair use in the Betamax case, is now a member of both the MPAA and the RIAA. There is no more balance of power. The money ends up in the same pockets anyway. So that's that. This is the REAL reason anti-trust exists: to stop the massive cross-breeding of companies and destruction of the economic balance of power. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 16:42:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA25826 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:42:04 -0400 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA25822 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:42:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20000626204357.1809.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:43:57 PDT Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:43:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request 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 --- Ole Craig wrote: > A brief request to folks on the list: If you have time, > please put on your "devil's advocate/technical expert for the MPAA" > hat, and review the declaration I submitted in support of the motion > to vacate and cross-motion to dismiss. http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0614-def-reply.html#Craig> > What questions would you direct the lawyers to ask, if you > wanted to discredit me as a source of information, and/or poke holes > in the things I assert? OK, here's my devil's ad: I'd expect them to think to themselves: "OK, so Schumann got the numbers wrong -- but do the real numbers justify the qualitative harms" 1. For trial (c), 5GB over 100BaseT, your results are 48 minutes. If a movie is ~90 minutes, wouldn't this enable remote watch without storing? 2. If the throughput is less than the nominal 100 megabits per second, wouldn't that indicate the possibility of suboptimal performance? Are you claiming that the network card manufacturers deliberately mis-state their product capabilities? 3. Once a DivX is made, it can be reproduced a second, third, fourth, time without additional image quality loss, correct? 4. Would a DivX quality video be comparable to ordinary TV? How good is the quality? 5. How long, by your calculations would it take to transfer a DivX movie over the 10baseT typical college network? 6. In fact, MP3's are similar to DivX in that they involve a one time image degradation, correct? MP3 Piracy is rampant, isn't it? Have you encourntered MP3 trading on your college's network? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 17:01:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA26152 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:01:10 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA26149 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:01:05 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (jeffw@firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA18270 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:03:33 -0400 Message-ID: <3957C4E9.5B5324B3@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:02:33 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.16 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request 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 Ole Craig wrote: > Hi - > A brief request to folks on the list: If you have time, > please put on your "devil's advocate/technical expert for the MPAA" > hat, and review the declaration I submitted in support of the motion > to vacate and cross-motion to dismiss. http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0614-def-reply.html#Craig> > > What questions would you direct the lawyers to ask, if you > wanted to discredit me as a source of information, and/or poke holes > in the things I assert? > I'm not sure I agree that you can claim that FTP is optimal without justification. It is known for instance that TCP has limitations when it comes to very high bandwidth. NFS transmits via UDP for instance which may or may not be more effencient depending. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 17:47:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA26739 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:47:36 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA26736 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:47:35 -0400 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08503 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:50:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:50:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request In-Reply-To: <3957C4E9.5B5324B3@mindspring.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 06/26/00 at 17:02, 'twas brillig and Jeff Waller scrobe: > > Ole Craig wrote: > > > Hi - > > A brief request to folks on the list: If you have time, > > please put on your "devil's advocate/technical expert for the MPAA" > > hat, and review the declaration I submitted in support of the motion > > to vacate and cross-motion to dismiss. > http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0614-def-reply.html#Craig> > > > > What questions would you direct the lawyers to ask, if you > > wanted to discredit me as a source of information, and/or poke holes > > in the things I assert? > > > > I'm not sure I agree that you can claim that FTP is optimal without > justification. > It is known for instance that TCP has limitations when it comes to very high > bandwidth. NFS transmits via UDP for instance which may or may not be > more effencient depending. Jeff - Thanks for responding. That "very high bandwidth" you're talking about can't be in the realm of single 100Mbit connections, though... Can it? (Cite?) I'm a sysadmin, not a theoretician; my experience is based in practicality. If I want to get a large file from one of my systems to another, quickly and with no data corruption, I use ftp, rcp, or possibly dd or tar over an rsh tunnel, all of which are TCP-based. (Well, actually, usually I'll use scp or ssh since I don't like trusted-host authentication methods, but we're talking about optimizing for speed.) I know firsthand that for that particular application, NFS will take longer. -- Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key Thomas Penfield Jackson for President! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 21:03:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA27958 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:03:00 -0400 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 VAA27955 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:02:58 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04064; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:05:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:05:11 -0400 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200006270105.VAA04064@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <20000626204357.1809.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: >--- Ole Craig wrote: >> A brief request to folks on the list: If you have time, >> please put on your "devil's advocate/technical expert for the MPAA" >> hat, and review the declaration I submitted in support of the motion >> to vacate and cross-motion to dismiss. > >http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0614-def-reply.html#Craig> >> What questions would you direct the lawyers to ask, if you >> wanted to discredit me as a source of information, and/or poke holes >> in the things I assert? > >OK, here's my devil's ad: > >I'd expect them to think to themselves: "OK, so Schumann got the >numbers wrong -- but do the real numbers justify the qualitative harms" > >1. For trial (c), 5GB over 100BaseT, your results are 48 minutes. If a >movie is ~90 minutes, wouldn't this enable remote watch without >storing? > > >2. If the throughput is less than the nominal 100 megabits per second, >wouldn't that indicate the possibility of suboptimal performance? Are >you claiming that the network card manufacturers deliberately mis-state >their product capabilities? A 10Mb/s ethernet card, for example, will always transmit at 10Mb/s. However, it spends a good chunk of its time not transmitting. >3. Once a DivX is made, it can be reproduced a second, third, fourth, >time without additional image quality loss, correct? But the damage has already been done. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 21:17:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA28103 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:17:26 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28100 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:17:25 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA07116 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:19:37 -0500 Message-ID: <395802B3.9DE071AA@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:26:11 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request References: <200006270105.VAA04064@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.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 > >1. For trial (c), 5GB over 100BaseT, your results are 48 minutes. If > >a movie is ~90 minutes, wouldn't this enable remote watch without > >storing? If there's only one person doing this, what would be improper? Add a second viewer and you run into bandwidth limitations, and it still isn't necessarily against the law. Think of an in-home network. You've got a few computers on a 100Mbps network, and want the movie showing on all of them. If you bandwidth even allows it, who's to say it's copyright infringment? There's still only one copy, and it doesn't seem to be a "public performance." The further you move from this scenario (distance, population), the greater the bandwidth constraints. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jun 26 23:13:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA29031 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:13:13 -0400 Received: from ivc1.ivc.com (ivc1.ivc.com [216.27.56.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29028 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:13:12 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (jeffw@firefly.ivc.com [216.27.56.74]) by ivc1.ivc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA03124 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:15:40 -0400 Message-ID: <39581C24.66609062@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:14:44 -0400 From: Jeff Waller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.16 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request 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 Ole Craig wrote: > On 06/26/00 at 17:02, 'twas brillig and Jeff Waller scrobe: > > > > Ole Craig wrote: > > > > > Hi - > > > A brief request to folks on the list: If you have time, > > > please put on your "devil's advocate/technical expert for the MPAA" > > > hat, and review the declaration I submitted in support of the motion > > > to vacate and cross-motion to dismiss. > > http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0614-def-reply.html#Craig> > > > > > > What questions would you direct the lawyers to ask, if you > > > wanted to discredit me as a source of information, and/or poke holes > > > in the things I assert? > > > > > > > I'm not sure I agree that you can claim that FTP is optimal without > > justification. > > It is known for instance that TCP has limitations when it comes to very high > > bandwidth. NFS transmits via UDP for instance which may or may not be > > more effencient depending. > > Jeff - > Thanks for responding. > > That "very high bandwidth" you're talking about can't be in > the realm of single 100Mbit connections, though... Can it? (Cite?) Stephens. TCP/IP illustrated. All because to fully utilize the avaliable bandwidth, the TCP/IP sliding-window size must be equal to the bandwidth delay product. This window has a maximum size due to OS implementation limitations, which seems to be configurable in linux, however. Increase the latency or bandwidth (or both) sufficiently, and TCP/IP can't keep up. Now any protocol that is reliable must also do some sort of ACK/NAK, given, but may not suffer from TCP/IP's limitation. Perhaps there's no concept of window. Perhaps there's no attempt to detect congestion. TCP/IP's great flexibility may make it sub-optimal in other words. > > I'm a sysadmin, not a theoretician; my experience is based in > practicality. If I want to get a large file from one of my systems to > another, quickly and with no data corruption, I use ftp, rcp, or > possibly dd or tar over an rsh tunnel, all of which are TCP-based. > (Well, actually, usually I'll use scp or ssh since I don't like > trusted-host authentication methods, but we're talking about > optimizing for speed.) I know firsthand that for that particular > application, NFS will take longer. Numbers? Devil's advocate. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 01:44:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA29933 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:44:09 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA29921 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:44:07 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 136oCd-0002EG-00; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:46:31 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:46:31 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request Message-ID: <20000626224631.I15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000626204357.1809.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000626204357.1809.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 01:43:57PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor writes: > --- Ole Craig wrote: > > A brief request to folks on the list: If you have time, > > please put on your "devil's advocate/technical expert for the MPAA" > > hat, and review the declaration I submitted in support of the motion > > to vacate and cross-motion to dismiss. > > http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0614-def-reply.html#Craig> > > What questions would you direct the lawyers to ask, if you > > wanted to discredit me as a source of information, and/or poke holes > > in the things I assert? > > OK, here's my devil's ad: > > I'd expect them to think to themselves: "OK, so Schumann got the > numbers wrong -- but do the real numbers justify the qualitative harms" > > 1. For trial (c), 5GB over 100BaseT, your results are 48 minutes. If a > movie is ~90 minutes, wouldn't this enable remote watch without > storing? Streaming is even easier than copying in many environments, because you don't need all that hard drive space. Think of it as radio or TV; the "marginal" version is non-archived RealAudio or Shoutcast (soon Icecast+Vorbis) network radio streams. The law already supports efforts by BMI and other clearance organizations to collect royalties from Internet broadcasters, and they will start to do that. Maybe some of the broadcasters will start to use anonymizing audio stream reflectors in other countries. The "pirate" version is free on-demand streams of a particular clip. E.g. someone could write a CGI script http://www.evil-pirates.net/cgi-bin/stream-mp3?Leftfield-Open-Up.mp3 http://www.evil-pirates.net/cgi-bin/stream-dvd?The-Matrix.vob The MPAA/RIAA-approved version is presumably exactly the same, except the stream is encrypted and you provide a credit card number -- pay-per-view TV-on-demand just like in some of the hotels. The cute thing is that the technology allows _non-pay-per-view_ TV-on-demand (though most people don't have the bandwidth for streaming VOBs this year); the industry associations won't like that. -- 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 Jun 27 02:23:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA30315 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:23:47 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA30312 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:23:46 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FWS00L40V5S7B@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:12:25 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request In-reply-to: <20000626204357.1809.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FWS00L41V5S7B@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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 From: Bryan Taylor > --- Ole Craig wrote: > > A brief request to folks on the list: If you have time, please put on your > > "devil's advocate/technical expert for the MPAA" hat, and review the > > declaration I submitted in support of the motion to vacate and cross-motion to > > dismiss. http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0614-def-reply.html#Craig> > > What questions would you direct the lawyers to ask, if you wanted to > > discredit me as a source of information, and/or poke holes in the things I > > assert? > > OK, here's my devil's ad: These are pretty good. > I'd expect them to think to themselves: "OK, so Schumann got the > numbers wrong -- but do the real numbers justify the qualitative harms" > > 1. For trial (c), 5GB over 100BaseT, your results are 48 minutes. If a > movie is ~90 minutes, wouldn't this enable remote watch without > storing? True, but the issue is about piracy. (1) Spending 48 minutes to copy a single DVD is still beyond the limits of most people's patience. (2) The 48 minutes also counts serving time and network bandwidth time on the serving side. If a simple client server model were used to enable mass copying, the server would need to be able to serve this data to multiple clients at once. The performance would more than likely go down fairly quickly (may need to fill in with more credible experiments here -- what happens when you try to grab the same file at staggered time points?.) That leaves a point to point. In an ICQ-DCC style system this means that in order to achieve a 48 minute transfer time the intervening segment of the internet would have to add 0 overhead, both the sender and receiver would have to stay on-line for those 48 minutes, at most one client may request the file and no other significant traffic should exist from either of the two end points. > 2. If the throughput is less than the nominal 100 megabits per second, > wouldn't that indicate the possibility of suboptimal performance? Are > you claiming that the network card manufacturers deliberately mis-state > their product capabilities? The manufacturers state the maximum throughput of the raw bits, because that is the only practical specification for ethernet hardware speed. The protocols which allow for file transfer (TCP/IP or IPX, in addition to the telnet an ftp protocols) add overhead in terms of data headers to describe the progress so far, as well as by directional data and time delays to retain synchronicity (I'm not sure if all this is totally accurate.) Also not taken into account by this is the performance impact of the computers systems that need to carry this volume of data as well as manage the protocol state. > 3. Once a DivX is made, it can be reproduced a second, third, fourth, > time without additional image quality loss, correct? Yes, DivX is also a digital format. However, the bulk of the loss comes with the actual conversion from DVD to DivX. > 4. Would a DivX quality video be comparable to ordinary TV? How good is > the quality? Although it is difficult to exactly quantify the effect of this 10 => 1 data loss, some that have observed it (me!) claimed that its no better than VHS; i.e., it has a quality comparable to what could be achieved via video capture of DVD then output to VHS. NTSC (TV) is slightly higher quality than VHS, but these are all subjective statements. (Perhaps those in the know can say something more concrete here.) > 5. How long, by your calculations would it take to transfer a DivX movie over the > 10baseT typical college network? Did some of the calculations already cover this? In any event its about 1/10th the base speed, but the host software overhead doesn't get any higer, so I would suspect that its almost as bad as 10 times as bad. > 6. In fact, MP3's are similar to DivX in that they involve a one time > image degradation, correct? MP3 Piracy is rampant, isn't it? Have you > encourntered MP3 trading on your college's network? This is reason by analogy. Most CD => MP3 conversions are of very acceptable quality. MP3 includes settings that are of CD quality or higher, so the loss is scalable and often negligible in the actual end quality. Furthermore the original CD source is uncompressed, so much more opportunities to compress are available. DVD's start compressed, with an already very high quality per bit encoding. Conversion to DivX (or any other known lossy video format) is merely a means of reducing the quality along with a corresponding reduction in size. -------------------- It occurrs to me that we might want to put together a comprehensive glossary of terms and their relevance to the deCSS case to make sure the defence team and the experts for our side are well prepared. A topic break down might be something like: 1) Information theory: entropy, (non-)lossy compression, non-lossy, etc. 2) Video compression: MPEG (1, 2=DVD, 4=DivX), AVI/QuickTime. 3) Audio (AC3 (5.1), MPEG-1 layer 3, WAV/AU, sampling rate, etc.) 4) Video standards: NTSC, VHS, VGA, HDTV, 70mm projection, etc. 5) Video recording: VCRs, capture cards, macrovision. 6) File systems: DVD, CDs, IDE/SCSI disk drives, UDF, NFS. 7) Network systems: Ethernet, TCP/IP, the internet (broad band, T1/3, oc-192) 8) CPUs/OSes: swap files, virtual memory, caching, Linux, Windows. 9) Cryptography: cryptanalysis, protocal security . So under 8) Caching, we might write: Definition: A mechanism for exploiting local redundancy to improve the performance of memory access. A cache is an array of recently used memory addresses and corresponding contents that is connected more closely to the central processing unit than the device or external memory that it is speeding up. As long as a cache is used effectively the performance of your computer system will highly correlated to the performance of the central processing unit itself. Whether disk or memory is being cached, modern implementations are generally between 8K and 2MBs. Relevance to deCSS: This mostly relevant in that it is *NOT* relevant. The deCSS algorithm treats the data in a stream like manner. This means that during the majority of the operation it reads a segment of the source, processes it, then writes to the destination then moves onto the next segment. Thus there is no data redundancy at all. Furthermore operations such as transfer of DVD files (which are far too large to fit in a cache) over a network or from disk to disk, disk to network, or network to disk also cannot use caching since since those operations are also stream-like. What this means is that the performance of your computer system in conjunction to the transfer, or decryption of DVDs is not highly correlated to speed of the central processing unit. So while central processing units get faster and faster according to Moore's law, this does not apply to the speed of data copying or DVD decryption. So what do you think? Is this worthwhile to pursue? -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 02:34:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA30472 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:34:26 -0400 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA30469 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:34:25 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FWS00ERXVO9NR@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:23:18 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request In-reply-to: <20000626224631.I15588@zork.net> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FWS00ERYVO9NR@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20000626204357.1809.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 01:43:57PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth David Schoen wrote: > > --- Ole Craig wrote: > > > A brief request to folks on the list: If you have time, > > > please put on your "devil's advocate/technical expert for the MPAA" > > > hat, and review the declaration I submitted in support of the motion > > > to vacate and cross-motion to dismiss. > > > > http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0614-def-reply.html#Craig> > > > What questions would you direct the lawyers to ask, if you > > > wanted to discredit me as a source of information, and/or poke holes > > > in the things I assert? > > > > OK, here's my devil's ad: > > > > I'd expect them to think to themselves: "OK, so Schumann got the > > numbers wrong -- but do the real numbers justify the qualitative harms" > > > > 1. For trial (c), 5GB over 100BaseT, your results are 48 minutes. If a > > movie is ~90 minutes, wouldn't this enable remote watch without > > storing? > > Streaming is even easier than copying in many environments, because > you don't need all that hard drive space. > > Think of it as radio or TV; the "marginal" version is non-archived > RealAudio or Shoutcast (soon Icecast+Vorbis) network radio streams. > [...] Good point. Unfortunately in the experiments done so far, the results was definately stored. On the other hand I would highly suspect that that was indeed the *least* bottleneck in all of the experiements done. What I mean is if you just pulled the data and stored it to the ether (is it possible to save the file to /dev/null (or just "nul" in Windows)?) I think the performance would be identical. If someone is up for another experiment and knows how to set this up then great. If you are a programmer then a winsock program that just pulled data from an external source and just didn't store it anywhere would suffice. (Unfortunately, I am not a WinSock expert, and I don't have a home network to try this on.) -- Paul Hsieh http://www.pobox.com/~qed/ -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 02:39:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA30587 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:39:35 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA30584 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:39:34 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 136p4M-0002MO-00; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:42:02 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:42:02 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request Message-ID: <20000626234202.K15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000626204357.1809.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> <0FWS00L41V5S7B@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <0FWS00L41V5S7B@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>; from qed@pobox.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:12:25AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Hsieh writes: > > 1. For trial (c), 5GB over 100BaseT, your results are 48 minutes. If a > > movie is ~90 minutes, wouldn't this enable remote watch without > > storing? > > True, but the issue is about piracy. (1) Spending 48 minutes to copy a single > DVD is still beyond the limits of most people's patience. (2) The 48 minutes also > counts serving time and network bandwidth time on the serving side. > > If a simple client server model were used to enable mass copying, the server > would need to be able to serve this data to multiple clients at once. The > performance would more than likely go down fairly quickly (may need to fill in with > more credible experiments here -- what happens when you try to grab the same > file at staggered time points?.) Remember that public performance is an exclusive right of a copyright holder under 17 USC. Just making something available to people you don't know may count as public performance, thus an infringement of copyright, thus informally "piracy" -- even if only one person ever looks at it at a time and it's never fixed in a tangible medium by anybody else. Anyway, you should keep in mind that if a server can theoretically transmit something in time a, but in practice only sends it in time b, the time to send two copies in parallel is often between 2a and 2b (if the copies are going to different destinations), rather than being greater than or equal to 2b. (That is, if you're getting sub-optimum performance, adding more transmissions in parallel could _improve_ your average throughput, rather than making it worse!) -- 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 Jun 27 02:41:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA30636 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:41:40 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA30633 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:41:39 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 136p6O-0002Ma-00; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:44:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:44:08 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request Message-ID: <20000626234408.L15588@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000626204357.1809.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com>; <20000626224631.I15588@zork.net> <0FWS00ERYVO9NR@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <0FWS00ERYVO9NR@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net>; from qed@pobox.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:23:18AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Hsieh writes: > Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > > Streaming is even easier than copying in many environments, because > > you don't need all that hard drive space. > > > > Think of it as radio or TV; the "marginal" version is non-archived > > RealAudio or Shoutcast (soon Icecast+Vorbis) network radio streams. > > [...] > > Good point. Unfortunately in the experiments done so far, the results was > definately stored. On the other hand I would highly suspect that that was indeed > the *least* bottleneck in all of the experiements done. What I mean is if you just > pulled the data and stored it to the ether (is it possible to save the file to /dev/null > (or just "nul" in Windows)?) I think the performance would be identical. > > If someone is up for another experiment and knows how to set this up then great. > If you are a programmer then a winsock program that just pulled data from an > external source and just didn't store it anywhere would suffice. (Unfortunately, I > am not a WinSock expert, and I don't have a home network to try this on.) I wasn't thinking about hard drive speed, but about hard drive capacity. Some people said that most home users can't fit DVDs on their hard drives, which is true. But those users don't need to, if somebody who can decides to make the same information available in a stream. -- 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 Jun 27 03:58:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA31020 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:58:57 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA31017 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:58:56 -0400 Received: from photon ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FWS00LELYPO7J@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:29:10 -0700 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request In-reply-to: <20000626234202.K15588@zork.net> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0FWS00LEMYPO7J@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <0FWS00L41V5S7B@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>; from qed@pobox.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:12:25AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Paul Hsieh writes: > > > 1. For trial (c), 5GB over 100BaseT, your results are 48 minutes. If a > > > movie is ~90 minutes, wouldn't this enable remote watch without > > > storing? > > > > True, but the issue is about piracy. (1) Spending 48 minutes to copy a single > > DVD is still beyond the limits of most people's patience. (2) The 48 minutes also > > counts serving time and network bandwidth time on the serving side. > > > > If a simple client server model were used to enable mass copying, the server > > would need to be able to serve this data to multiple clients at once. The > > performance would more than likely go down fairly quickly (may need to fill in with > > more credible experiments here -- what happens when you try to grab the same > > file at staggered time points?.) > > Remember that public performance is an exclusive right of a copyright > holder under 17 USC. Just making something available to people you > don't know may count as public performance, thus an infringement of > copyright, thus informally "piracy" -- even if only one person ever > looks at it at a time and it's never fixed in a tangible medium by > anybody else. Right, but you could perform an infringment of this kind by simply playing the DVD you bought for a large public audience as well. (C-Cube got in trouble for showing "Batman" to a public audience as a demonstration of their hardware -- they didn't even think to consider that they were violating WB's copyright!) At this point we have left the realm of the MPAA's claims again deCSS thus far. > Anyway, you should keep in mind that if a server can theoretically > transmit something in time a, but in practice only sends it in time > b, the time to send two copies in parallel is often between 2a and > 2b (if the copies are going to different destinations), rather than > being greater than or equal to 2b. (That is, if you're getting > sub-optimum performance, adding more transmissions in parallel could > _improve_ your average throughput, rather than making it worse!) To get these sorts of effects, you would have to make sure the transfer of the streams were roughly synchronized so that the server would tend to have it cached. But at 5GB's unless you are doing specifically timed broadcasts of the files (which in essence increases the wait time to obtain a copy of it) you won't see this. The expected average staggering itself would not typically be within the size of a cache. I.e., for a 1MB L2 cache, the odds of two xfers being able to share the data would be 5000 to 1 against. For a 32MB disk cache (yeah right), the odds are still 156 to 1 against. Or is there another effect at work here that I am missing? -- Paul Hsieh http://www.pobox.com/~qed/ -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 06:08:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA32233 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:08:58 -0400 Received: from kruuna.Helsinki.FI (sendmail@kruuna.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA32230 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:08:56 -0400 Received: from localhost (ssyreeni@localhost) by kruuna.Helsinki.FI (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5RABJl26608 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:11:19 +0300 (EET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kruuna.Helsinki.FI: ssyreeni owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:11:18 +0300 (EET DST) From: Sampo A Syreeni To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request In-Reply-To: <0FWS00LEMYPO7J@mta5.snfc21.pbi.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 Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Paul Hsieh wrote: >To get these sorts of effects, you would have to make sure the transfer of the >streams were roughly synchronized so that the server would tend to have it >cached. Devil's advocate: multicast is coming. One sender, 1M receivers. Given software like Gnutella et al., we could envision an adaptation for mass distribution through which you 'place orders' in a queue and all recipient software syncs to a single multicast session of a given item at a later time. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 10:13:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02107 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:13:16 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02104 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:13:14 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA29594 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:15:27 -0500 Message-ID: <3958B78A.731D893A@mninter.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:17:46 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request 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 > Devil's advocate: multicast is coming. One sender, 1M receivers. Given > software like Gnutella et al., we could envision an adaptation for mass > distribution through which you 'place orders' in a queue and all recipient > software syncs to a single multicast session of a given item at a later > time. > > Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university A fair DA position, because I can almost hear it coming from their mouths right now. However, this is a blatant copyright infringement (public performance) that would be easier to claim than Napster. The most important thing is that such possibilities made by DeCSS are just as possible to be non-infringing as infringing. For instance, I would not be surprised that the person who arranged this licensed the rights to rebroadcast it. Or, as in my last message, I set up a multicasting server in my home to show the same movie on all my screens -- not illegal. I think streaming is a dead end for them. It is even less convincing to me than store-and-forward because the copies do not persist. It invokes the public performance rather than distribution end of infringement. Their whole case is based on the fact that they are unwilling to actually identify distributing infringers, just those that make it theoretically possible. Any sufficiently public performance would be discovered and litigated. Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 10:23:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02271 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:23:53 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02267 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:23:40 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA30785 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:25:44 -0500 Message-ID: <3958B9F4.774FADC0@mninter.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:28:04 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request 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 How fast, Mr. Craig, will network technology advance in the next five years? What networking technology will be available next year? How fast is your internet conection from your home? How fast was it three years ago? How fast will it be in the next three years? I think that is a reasonable direction for them to head. They want to establish that predicting improvements in networking technology is a grey area they can exploit. If the "experts" acknowledge it is unknowable they may still be able to claim harm no matter how accurate our current-day measurements. We may want to bone up on the differential of networking speed improvements since the 60s, and in the last 5 years. Also, how long it has traditionally taken cutting-edge technology to become ubiquitous to end-users (how long has 10Mbit been around? How about ASDL? How many people have "the broadband?" When were the broadband technologies invented?) Anything else along these lines? Chris From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 11:00:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02631 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:00:51 -0400 Received: from cyclesoftware.com (www.cyclesoftware.com [209.46.107.178]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA02628 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:00:44 -0400 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000513492 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:02:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3958B78A.731D893A@mninter.net> References: <3958B78A.731D893A@mninter.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:02:38 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request 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 > > Devil's advocate: multicast is coming. One sender, 1M receivers. Given >> software like Gnutella et al., we could envision an adaptation for mass >> distribution through which you 'place orders' in a queue and all recipient >> software syncs to a single multicast session of a given item at a later >> time. >> >> Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > >A fair DA position, because I can almost hear it coming from their >mouths right now. However, this is a blatant copyright infringement >(public performance) that would be easier to claim than Napster. > >The most important thing is that such possibilities made by DeCSS are >just as possible to be non-infringing as infringing. For instance, I >would not be surprised that the person who arranged this licensed the >rights to rebroadcast it. Or, as in my last message, I set up a >multicasting server in my home to show the same movie on all my screens >-- not illegal. Taking a DA position this sort of development is imminent and especially because of deCSS. Apple has announced that QuickTime 5 will finally include MPEG-2 and in particular MPEG-2 streaming with its free (well, it is open source) streaming server. With DeCSS this would allow an individual to rip the contents of a DVD to a hard drive, export it for streaming (which usually doubles the file size) and then be able to run multiple streams over a LAN, which in this case would probably be a home network or possibly a dorm. The required bandwidth would certainly limit the significance of this development outside of a 100baseT LAN. But I do plan to have fun at home. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 11:04:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02789 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:04:49 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02786 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:04:22 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 136wwq-0005cP-00; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:06:48 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 136wwq-0006zf-00; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:06:48 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:06:48 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request Message-ID: <20000627170648.A25746@inka.de> References: <3958B78A.731D893A@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from steve_bryan@mac.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 10:02:38AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 10:02:38AM -0500, steve bryan wrote: > With DeCSS this > would allow an individual to rip the contents of a DVD to a hard > drive, export it for streaming (which usually doubles the file size) > and then be able to run multiple streams over a LAN, which in this > case would probably be a home network or possibly a dorm. The > required bandwidth would certainly limit the significance of this > development outside of a 100baseT LAN. But I do plan to have fun at > home. Which is of course, aside from posible interpretations of the DMCA, quite legal. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 12:06:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03311 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:06:10 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA03308 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:06:09 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24251 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:08:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3958C4C7.7DC1AE4F@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:14:16 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request 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 order to achieve a 48 minute transfer > time the intervening segment of the internet would > have to add 0 overhead, both the sender and receiver > would have to stay on-line for those 48 minutes, at > most one client may request the file and no other > significant traffic should exist from either of the two > end points. Not to mention that this would completely spike at least one of the links between the two hosts. Many ISPs, including us, would interpret that as a probable denial of service attack in progress, and filter out (disable) the source IP address to correct the "damage." Why? Because other people's traffic is being dropped because the link is saturated. The phones are ringing off the hook, and people want to know how long it will be before they can look at their web sites again. The Seven Minute Miracle argument is akin to an argument that "An Indy car can travel at over 220 miles per hour. Thus, by using one of these cars, an average person could drive the entire ~12 mile length of Manhattan Island in under four minutes. This analogy only seems plausable if you are completely ignorant of the traffic situation in New York City. Similarly, the Seven Minute Miracle only seems plausable if you are completely ignorant of the structure of the internet. - John From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 12:09:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03410 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:09:14 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f220.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.220]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA03407 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:09:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 6041 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jun 2000 16:11:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20000627161108.6040.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 208.41.124.41 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:11:08 PDT X-Originating-IP: [208.41.124.41] From: "Richard Ramos" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:11:08 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Devil's advocate: multicast is coming. One sender, 1M receivers. Given >software like Gnutella et al., we could envision an adaptation for mass >distribution through which you 'place orders' in a queue and all >recipient >software syncs to a single multicast session of a given item at a later >time. > >Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki >university Reality to this is that Multicast is only possible when all routers between the client and the server are multicast enabled. Most routers out there are not compatible with this and the chances that people are going to install new routers when the current ones are fast and reliable are nil. Richard Ramos ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 12:12:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03539 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:12:56 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA03536 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:12:55 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:15:59 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C81@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] NY Times letters re Valenti Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:15:53 -0700 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 Correct me if I'm wrong ... but why won't copyright still protect them? It's the technological attempt at prior restraint that we're challenging ... not copyright. Dean is addressing Valenti's complaint at it's face value w/o questioning the basic premise. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Gustavson [mailto:rongus@tiac.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 9:58 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] NY Times letters re Valenti > > > Two letters responding to the Valenti column-- > http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l25val.html > > To the Editor: > Jack Valenti, chairman of the Motion Picture Association, asks, > "If copyright can no longer protect the distribution of the work > they produce, who will invest immense sums to create films or > any other creative material of the kind we now take for granted?" > (Op-Ed, June 21). > > There are many ways other than copyrights to ... > DEAN BAKER > Washington, June 21, 2000 The writer is co-director, Center for > Economic and Policy Research. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 12:17:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03774 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:17:32 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA03771 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:17:31 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:20:39 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C82@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.20 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:20:35 -0700 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 Providing access is not the responsibility of the copyright owner ... but we are not asking the MPAA to buy us all DVD players. The point is that _preventing_ such legal access is not within the rights of the copyright owner. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Neu [mailto:tim@tneu.visi.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 2:41 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.20 > > > So modified. > > Another question has come up on #20 - > > Is "All copyright owners must allow uses to access their > works for three > reasons" - an accurate statement? > > If so, can we provide a citation to that effect? It has come to my > attention that although these accesses are considered legal, providing > such access is not necessarily a responsibility of the > copyright owner. > > > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > All copyright owners must allow uses to access their > works for three > > reasons: > > * Fair Use > > * First Sale > > * Copyright Expiration > > > > CSS prevents all of these lawful activities from taking place. > > > > > > Should probably read, "CSS in conjunction with the > (secret?) licensing > > terms imposed by the DVD-CCA prevent all of these lawful activities > > from taking place." > > > > > > Paul Fenimore > > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=-=-=-=-=-=- > ______ _ __ "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 > / <_/ / / < / (_ http://www.visi.com/~tneu -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 12:57:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA05793 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:57:29 -0400 Received: from dial100.roadrunner.com (dial100.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.100] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA05790 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:57:25 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial100.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00791 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:00:14 -0600 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:00:13 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request Message-ID: <20000627110013.A585@localhost> References: <20000626204357.1809.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> <0FWS00L41V5S7B@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <0FWS00L41V5S7B@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>; from qed@pobox.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:12:25AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:12:25AM -0700, Paul Hsieh wrote: [ ... ] > 1) Information theory: entropy, (non-)lossy compression, non-lossy, etc. > 2) Video compression: MPEG (1, 2=DVD, 4=DivX), AVI/QuickTime. > 3) Audio (AC3 (5.1), MPEG-1 layer 3, WAV/AU, sampling rate, etc.) Entropy makes a reasonable measure of whether the signal can be losslessly compressed. It is important to also note that image quality is an empirical measure of some subjective things. One should affirmatively note that lossy compression seeks to keep the empirical measure of perceptual quality high, that information theory doesn't provide a measure of subjective quality, and that info theory provides tools to decide if the redundany has been squeezed out of a signal. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 13:19:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA06117 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:19:14 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06114 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:19:13 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08108 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:21:43 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3958D5E9.79756280@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:27:21 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] NY Times letters re Valenti 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 To the Editor: > Jack Valenti, chairman of the Motion Picture Association, asks, > "If copyright can no longer protect the distribution of the work > they produce, who will invest immense sums to create films or > any other creative material of the kind we now take for granted?" Richard Hartman writes: > Correct me if I'm wrong ... but why won't copyright still protect them? Here is what they do not understand. Since the late 1970s, the technology has existed for ordinary people to use VCRs to trample on MPAA copyrights. However, people seem more inclined to purchase or rent videotapes then to copy them from each other. This is the basis of the entire non-theatrical motion picture industry. You can interpret that in many ways. The MPAA's interpretation appears to be that the American people are basically thieves and pirates, and the only thing that has held back a tide of industry-destroying copying is the fact that a copy of a videotape is slightly inferior to the original. Under their interpretation, now that digital technology is removing that stumbling block, the public will show their true criminal colors and stop buying DVDs, in favor of DVD-R copies and inferior, degraded internet files. Another interpretation is that the American people are basically honest, understand copyright, believe in it in principle, and voluntarily respect copyright law. Even though CDRs cost $1.00 while commercial CDs cost $18.00, CD sales are at their highest level ever. The only part of the music market in which the RIAA is losing market share is to MP3s, which are a product that the RIAA companies do not offer. An overlooked lesson. Which brings me to a big problem that is just beginning to surface. Since the enactment and implementation of the DMCA, combined with copyright term extension, which came together like a one-two punch, I am hearing a new sentiment on newsgroups like slashdot that I have never heard before in my 33 years. The sentiment is that copyright is no longer desirable, that it has grossly exceeded its purpose, that it is now a hinderance, not even constitutional in its present form, and as a consequence, no longer has a moral or ethical basis. If this is the end result of the DMCA and term extension, then the MPAA and RIAA have gotten far more then they bargained for. To answer Mr. Valenti, your industry has always depended on the public agreeing with and respecting copyright law, so you better make sure that the law is something worthy of respect. Calling the general public -- your well paying customers -- criminals and pirates, and saying things like "Just because a person has purchased a DVD does not give them the right to watch it" does not engender respect for your copyrights, or for copyright law itself. If people start to reason that "If that's the law, then the law is an ass.", and you're depending on that law, then you are in trouble. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 13:40:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA06317 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:40:17 -0400 Received: from dial80.roadrunner.com (sf-du80.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06314 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:40:14 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial80.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00935 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:43:08 -0600 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:43:07 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] NY Times letters re Valenti Message-ID: <20000627114307.B585@localhost> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C81@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C81@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 09:15:53AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 09:15:53AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong ... but why won't copyright > still protect them? It's the technological attempt > at prior restraint that we're challenging ... not > copyright. Dean is addressing Valenti's complaint > at it's face value w/o questioning the basic premise. Yes, the prior restraint. Baker isn't going after the paracopyright issue, but from reading Valenti's stuff no one would know that it exists. Baker seems to be trying to get people to acknowledge that copyright is an industrial regulation. While that isn't the same as the paracopyright issue, they are related. Paracopyright is an attempt to extend the scope of industrial regulation past what is *already* the commerce issue called copyright. Baker doesn't seem to know the paracopyright angle, but he's on the money with "copyright is not property, even if one can have a property interest in a monopoly". Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 13:43:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA06694 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:43:18 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06691 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:43:13 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 136zQQ-0003Cy-00; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:45:30 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:45:30 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] NY Times letters re Valenti Message-ID: <20000627104530.A9454@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C81@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C81@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 09:15:53AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman writes: > Correct me if I'm wrong ... but why won't copyright > still protect them? It's the technological attempt > at prior restraint that we're challenging ... not > copyright. Dean is addressing Valenti's complaint > at it's face value w/o questioning the basic premise. Valenti asks rhetorically "isn't copyright necessary?", so one commentator replies "no, of course not". That's what I call "questioning the basic premise". Remember that Valenti's piece was not about the lawsuit -- it was about the importance of copyright in general. In the MPAA's view, filing lawsuits like this one is only one of many ways that the MPAA supports copyrights. So the letter you refer to was questioning the basic premise that the MPAA _needs to_ do all these things in order to ensure that creativity continues. Valenti said, more or less, that the public must subsidize his industry _to at least as great an extent_ as they have in the past, or it will mean a virtual end to creativity. If some other industry's spokesman said such a thing, people would be up in arms! -- 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 Jun 27 13:57:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA07182 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:57:48 -0400 Received: from dial80.roadrunner.com (sf-du80.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA07179 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:57:45 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial80.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00955 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:00:45 -0600 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:00:44 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.20 Message-ID: <20000627120044.C585@localhost> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C82@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C82@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 09:20:35AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 09:20:35AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > Providing access is not the responsibility of > the copyright owner ... but we are not asking > the MPAA to buy us all DVD players. > > The point is that _preventing_ such legal access > is not within the rights of the copyright owner. We agree. Copyright owners "must allow", which is not the same as "provide". "Must allow" is probably the same as "[not] prevent[]". The copyright owner or their agent took the affirmative step of scrambling the work, *and* the affirmative step of publishing the work. I'm saying that "must allow" access is the same as not *withholding* they key. The copyright holder can be bothered to scrambled and publish, but allowing access with the key is a burden? After all that other work, failing to deliver the key is preventing access. [ ... ] > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Neu [mailto:tim@tneu.visi.com] > > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 2:41 PM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.20 > > > > > > So modified. > > > > Another question has come up on #20 - > > > > Is "All copyright owners must allow uses to access their > > works for three > > reasons" - an accurate statement? > > > > If so, can we provide a citation to that effect? It has come to my > > attention that although these accesses are considered legal, providing > > such access is not necessarily a responsibility of the > > copyright owner. > > > > > > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > > All copyright owners must allow uses to access their > > works for three > > > reasons: > > > * Fair Use > > > * First Sale > > > * Copyright Expiration > > > > > > CSS prevents all of these lawful activities from taking place. > > > > > > > > > Should probably read, "CSS in conjunction with the > > (secret?) licensing > > > terms imposed by the DVD-CCA prevent all of these lawful activities > > > from taking place." Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 14:08:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA07358 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:08:25 -0400 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 OAA07355 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:08:24 -0400 Received: from ip210.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.210]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 136zoz-0005FC-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:10:54 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] NY Times letters re Valenti Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:04:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 OAA07356 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dean Baker: >Such a tax credit would be a much less serious government >intervention in the market than arresting people for possessing >software that reproduces copyrighted material. A natural analogy is to the copy machine which is a clear threat to Valenti's idea. Should all offices with xerox machines be closed? MPAA's fear of a Napster-like craze still doesn't pan out. The high quality theatrical version and/or original DVD disc will win just out of practical considerations and quality. When RIAA claims CD sales near universities have waned, they except purchases made thru Amazon, CDNow, and so on. It just makes sense that students will order their CDs online at a discount, rather than at the local recca' stor, where they'll likely pay list. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 17:27:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09507 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:27:43 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA09503 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:27:41 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:30:50 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C88@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.20 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:30:49 -0700 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 I think the point would be stronger -- and less susceptible to the misinterpretation that Tim volunteered -- if it were phrased as "must not prevent". Our objection against CSS is that it prevents these uses. Using the phrase "must not prevent" in this FAQ response would show consistancy, and also has slightly stronger implications against the MPAA in reinforcing the fact that they are currently aiming at preventing such uses. "must allow" -- although meaning essentially the samething -- is too nice ;-) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 11:01 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.20 > > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 09:20:35AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > > Providing access is not the responsibility of > > the copyright owner ... but we are not asking > > the MPAA to buy us all DVD players. > > > > The point is that _preventing_ such legal access > > is not within the rights of the copyright owner. > > We agree. Copyright owners "must allow", which is not the same as > "provide". "Must allow" is probably the same as "[not] prevent[]". > > The copyright owner or their agent took the affirmative step of > scrambling the work, *and* the affirmative step of publishing > the work. I'm saying that "must allow" access is the same as not > *withholding* they key. The copyright holder can be bothered to > scrambled and publish, but allowing access with the key is a burden? > After all that other work, failing to deliver the key is preventing > access. > > [ ... ] > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tim Neu [mailto:tim@tneu.visi.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 2:41 PM > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.20 > > > > > > > > > So modified. > > > > > > Another question has come up on #20 - > > > > > > Is "All copyright owners must allow uses to access their > > > works for three > > > reasons" - an accurate statement? > > > > > > If so, can we provide a citation to that effect? It has > come to my > > > attention that although these accesses are considered > legal, providing > > > such access is not necessarily a responsibility of the > > > copyright owner. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > > > > > All copyright owners must allow uses to access their > > > works for three > > > > reasons: > > > > * Fair Use > > > > * First Sale > > > > * Copyright Expiration > > > > > > > > CSS prevents all of these lawful activities from > taking place. > > > > > > > > > > > > Should probably read, "CSS in conjunction with the > > > (secret?) licensing > > > > terms imposed by the DVD-CCA prevent all of these > lawful activities > > > > from taking place." > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 18:16:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA09810 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:16:57 -0400 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA09807 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:16:56 -0400 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27931 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:19:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39591BB2.5BFBDD9C@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:25:07 -0500 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Debunking MPAA, Q19 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 MPAA FAQ question 19 says: > As a graphic example of the impact of the DeCSS hack, > the rollout of DVD audio - which was to have relied on the > CSS system -- was indefinitely postponed because of the > proliferation of DeCSS, depriving consumers of the choice > of this new higher quality audio format. The openlaw answers do not directly address this point. Here is an article from 1997 that gives a different view regarding DVD audio. Of course, this was before the DMCA made encryption enforcement an overriding priority: http://www.kipinet.com/tdb/tdb_mar97/tdb-feat5.html > One of the ironies at work here, ... is that the > procession towards a DVD Audio standard is slowed > by the fact that the major record labels are not actively > pursuing DVD-Audio for the same self-interested reasons > they worked so hard to make Red Book CDs successful. > It is an irony compounded by the fact that several labels, > including Columbia and PolyGram, are owned by companies - > in this case Sony and Philips - that are also consumer > hardware manufacturers whose DVD hardware divisions' > wishes are diametrically opposed to those of the record divisions. > "The labels don't see a reason to promote [a DVD-Audio standard ...]" and this DVD faq says: http://dvdmaster.com/dvdfaq/dvdfaq.html#1.12 > The scheduled October release was delayed until mid 2000, > ostensibly because of concerns caused by the CSS crack (see 1.11), > but also because the hardware wasn't quite ready, production tools > aren't up to snuff, and there is lackluster support from music > labels. Unfortunately neither article has any references. If anyone can find other articles that give different reasons for the delay in DVD audio other then encryption worries, it would help debunk this MPAA "example" of "harm" caused by DeCSS. Personal opinion: I strongly suspect that the real reason for the "lackluster support from music labels" is that the media holds too much data -- hours and hours of CD quality audio, and this would disrupt the "74 minutes for $18.00" RIAA marketing model. I don't think that anyone in the industry has come out and said this, although I would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong. Anyone have any better references? - John From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 18:21:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA09898 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:21:08 -0400 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 SAA09895 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:21:07 -0400 Received: from ip143.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.143]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 1373lZ-0000dd-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:23:38 -0400 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] NY Times letters re Valenti Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:17:38 -0400 Message-ID: References: <3958D5E9.79756280@uic.edu> In-Reply-To: <3958D5E9.79756280@uic.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 SAA09896 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:27:21 -0500, John Schulien wrote: Would it be at all useful for the defense to request that the injunction be broadened to include _all devices_ that abet copyright infringement? This would illustrate the absurdity of the MPAA position. It would have to include all PCs, copy machines, VCRs, tape decks--maybe even carbon paper if you can find it. >Which brings me to a big problem that is just beginning >to surface. Since the enactment and implementation of >the DMCA, combined with copyright term extension, >which came together like a one-two punch, I am >hearing a new sentiment on newsgroups like slashdot >that I have never heard before in my 33 years. The >sentiment is that copyright is no longer desirable, >that it has grossly exceeded its purpose, that it is >now a hinderance, not even constitutional in its >present form, and as a consequence, no longer has a >moral or ethical basis. I agree the Bono act scares a lot of people in that it is just the latest in a series of extensions. The implication is that copyright is no longer limited at all. The only limitation is the lack of marketability. In a print world this bar is high. But the Internet gives value to material that isn't worth printing-- but just having on tap. __________no-∞-do__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 21:45:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA11211 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:45:14 -0400 Received: from dial237.roadrunner.com (sf-du237.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.237]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA11206 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:45:06 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial237.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA00723 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:47:52 -0600 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:47:51 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] debunking MPAA, Q.20 Message-ID: <20000627194750.A586@localhost> References: <20000625142614.A1736@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 04:41:01PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 04:41:01PM -0500, Tim Neu wrote: > So modified. > > Another question has come up on #20 - > > Is "All copyright owners must allow uses to access their works for three > reasons" - an accurate statement? > > If so, can we provide a citation to that effect? It has come to my > attention that although these accesses are considered legal, providing > such access is not necessarily a responsibility of the copyright owner. > > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > All copyright owners must allow uses to access their works for three > > reasons: > > * Fair Use > > * First Sale > > * Copyright Expiration > > > > CSS prevents all of these lawful activities from taking place. In keeping with Richard Hartman's suggestion: Copright owners _must not prevent_ access to their works so that * Fair use can be made * Use after first sale can be made * Any and all use after copyright expiration can be made. The MPAA's reading of the statute makes the first two categories of use contingent upon the authorization of the copyright owner. Competently designed ciphers (not CSS) could prevent use in the last category. No, I don't know of legal authority to support this. The statute is still relatively untried. The question is whether the statute changes the meaning of publication. The recent "publication" of a Kerberos-like specification by Microsoft demonstrates that the new spelling for "publication" is N-D-A, if the copyright owner wants it that way. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jun 27 22:18:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA11496 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:18:03 -0400 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA11493 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:18:02 -0400 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniglr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.66.187]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA13272 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:18:49 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] NY Hearing Today In-Reply-To: <20000627104530.A9454@zork.net> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C81@mail2.onetouch.com> <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C81@mail2.onetouch.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 a hearing before Judge Kaplan today argument was heard on: 1. Plaintiffs' June 23 request to quash deposing Michael Eisner. See: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-edq.htm 2. Motion by defendants to adjourn the trial to a later date to allow for adequate trial preparation. In a lengthy statement Kaplan ruled: 1. Eisner can be deposed for 90 minutes. If at the end of that time defendants have established grounds for additional time the deposition can proceed for another time period. The purpose is to prevent questioning which does not focus only on providing information relevant to the court case -- and not for publicity. 2. Trial adjournment was denied, and the date of trial remains July 17, in synchrony with 3,000 hackers coming to NYC to cheer 2600. Kaplan deferred ruling on whether MPAA phone logs are privileged. In his statement Kaplan reviewed his take on the essential elements of the case: Was DeCSS invented and distribution solely to decrypt CSS? Can DeCSS be defended as a research tool? Can DeCSS cause irreparable harm to the plainfiffs? What were the motives of defendants for distributing DeCSS? Important but less significant: Are there means for the plaintiffs to prevent irreparable harm other than a favorable judgment in this case? Are there First Amendment consequences for banning DeCSS? I'd say it was one of Kaplan's better statements in this case, meaning not loaded in favor of the plaintiffs, though he repeatedly took swipes at the defense and in particular Marty Garbus. Plaintiffs' arguments were relatively brief. Charles Sims led, with Leon Gold assisting. MPAA's attorney Marvin Litvak was present. Ed Hernstadt led the defendants' more lengthy argument with a few remarks by Marty Garbus. Kaplan argued with Ed pretty much continually, and, as if with relish, regularly slurred Marty, whose back of head smiled as if riling the judge was unintentional. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 28 12:50:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA17322 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:50:00 -0400 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA17319 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:49:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20000628165200.299.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:52:00 PDT Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:52:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" control 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 filed its post-hearing reply comment to the Copyright Office. The fundamental point is that CSS invokes "authorization" under the DMCA improperly. It's quite a good read and makes some of the points we've discussed here. http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DMCA/20000623_eff_dmca_dvd_comments.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 28 14:04:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17875 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:04:09 -0400 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17872 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:04:07 -0400 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id LAA28540 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost1.ia.nsc.com(147.5.200.40) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma028161; Wed, 28 Jun 00 11:05:45 -0700 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16537; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:05:45 -0600 From: "John Zulauf" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] request Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:08:21 -0600 Message-ID: <000401bfe12b$d801c060$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> 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 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal 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 some interesting image quality assement technology referenced by the SPECmedia press release http://www.spec.org/gpc/mbc.static/mbcjoi.htm . It would seem a suitable objective means to measure DivX v. DVD quality. Anybody know any further details about it? == begin quote == SPECmedia has licensed software from MIT to be used as part of its quality measurement system. The video fidelity metric under development by SPECmedia compares a reference sequence with a sequence decoded by the system under test. It accounts for display device calibration, color appearance, and spatio-temporal sensitivity. The process starts when both video signals are gamma-corrected and mapped into a perceptual color space. Then, the difference between the two signals is computed. The next step is to assess the visibility of the difference signal. The signal is split into two paths, one called excitatory and the other inhibitory. In each path, the signal is filtered by a temporal and spatial filter. Each filter corresponds to a sensitivity mechanism. The difference between the two paths - the visible signal - is computed and pooled spatially and temporally to compute a distortion figure for the sequence. == end quote == jzulauf private netizen, IANAL, IAAMOAC From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 28 20:23:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21507 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:23:31 -0400 Received: from dial242.roadrunner.com (sf-du242.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.242]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21504 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:23:28 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial242.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA02932 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:26:38 -0600 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:26:37 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" control Message-ID: <20000628182636.A2814@localhost> References: <20000628165200.299.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000628165200.299.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:52:00AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I have one objection to this otherwise excellent comment by the EFF. I think the characterization of the encryption of the public domain as wholesale piracy is dead-on right. On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:52:00AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > The EFF has filed its post-hearing reply comment to the Copyright > Office. The fundamental point is that CSS invokes "authorization" under > the DMCA improperly. It's quite a good read and makes some of the > points we've discussed here. > > http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DMCA/20000623_eff_dmca_dvd_comments.html DVDs using CSS do not protect against unauthorized access to a work. Pirated DVDs have no trouble playing in DVD-CCA's licensed players. Rather, the system's design and ultimate objective is to prevent unauthorized copying - by requiring consumers to use devices which obey design restrictions that prevent such copying. I disagree that the system's "design and ultimate objective is to prevent unauthorized copying", at least from a technical stand-point. It is true that the licensing of CSS is used toward those ends. Unfortunately the quote contradicts itself by mentioning "pirated DVDs" in one sentence and "prevent unauthorized copying" in the next. Here's the funny thing --- while technologically CSS is access control, it isn't access control legally because it demonstrably fails the (a)(3)(B) test in a critical, non-correctable and final way. It isn't copy control legally because it is not CSS that "restricts ... the exercise of a right of a copyright owner", it is the CSS *license*, the resulting player hardware and limitations on the availability of "blank" media that do the restricting. In terms of 1201 (i.e. legally), I don't think CSS is anything. It's a big, fat zero. So, while I think one can devise a system that passes the (a)(3)(B) test of effectiveness (e.g. the EBX book spec), the way the law is written it turns "publication" into a non-disclosure agreement if that's what the copyright owner wants. That is a much wider scope for 1201(a) then simply providing legal cover for encrypting a work distributed without the transfer of a copy. If one is going to argue for universal authorization after first-sale, or no access control after first-sale, then I think one had better also argue for no access control on authorized copies after publication. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 28 20:32:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21725 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:32:31 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21722 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:32:30 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 137SIJ-0000zD-00; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:35:03 -0700 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:35:03 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" control Message-ID: <20000628173503.H9454@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000628165200.299.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> <20000628182636.A2814@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000628182636.A2814@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 06:26:37PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > If one is going to argue for universal authorization after first-sale, > or no access control after first-sale, then I think one had better > also argue for no access control on authorized copies after publication. This leads me to the question of whether it should be illegal to publish (or sell) encrypted information. If (as Eben Moglen argues) one has a First Amendment right to communicate privately in code, why not also to speak publicly in code? (I don't think this is what you're saying; can you explain further?) -- 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 Jun 28 21:11:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA21987 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:11:03 -0400 Received: from dial66.roadrunner.com (sf-du66.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA21984 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:11:00 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial66.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA03101 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:14:09 -0600 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:14:08 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" control Message-ID: <20000628191407.A3091@localhost> References: <20000628165200.299.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> <20000628182636.A2814@localhost> <20000628173503.H9454@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000628173503.H9454@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 05:35:03PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 05:35:03PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > If one is going to argue for universal authorization after first-sale, > > or no access control after first-sale, then I think one had better > > also argue for no access control on authorized copies after publication. > > This leads me to the question of whether it should be illegal to > publish (or sell) encrypted information. Encryption could be used to prevent third-parties from making unauthorized copies of a work that is transmitted electronically. In this one narrow sense, I think the MPAA et al. have a point. The old way of compensating the copyright owner was $$$ when the _copy_ entered the stream of commerce. Now that wide-spread electronic distribution of a work is possible, this old mode is clearly broken. Sure, a copy is made at the receiving end, but no copy is _transferred_. Pretty hard to use the copy as a token to track the flow of commerce. > If (as Eben Moglen argues) one has a First Amendment right to > communicate privately in code, why not also to speak publicly in code? > > (I don't think this is what you're saying; can you explain further?) What I'm saying is that it might be reasonable for the copyright owner to control the encryption of a communications channel, but it is grossly unreasonable for _the copyright owner_ to control the encryption of stored data after it enters the stream of commerce. I'll note that the MPAA's main publicly stated complaint is that further redistribution by otherwise legitimate holders of a copy is the reason for turning publication into an NDA proceedure. This is baloney. If the there are enough copies being distributed/made then it will be possible to detect the parties involved. If there are only a small number of copies being made electronically, I suspect that most of that use would be fair. Publishers panicked over the photocopier too, and their "concerns" where just as inflated. Piracy is a matter of scale. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 28 21:17:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA22140 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:17:53 -0400 Received: from ts0210.bates.edu (root@ts0209.bates.edu [134.181.72.139]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA22137 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:17:51 -0400 Received: from localhost (sam@localhost) by ts0210.bates.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00837 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:22:38 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: ts0210.bates.edu: sam owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:22:38 -0500 (CDT) From: sam th To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" control In-Reply-To: <20000628173503.H9454@zork.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, 28 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > If one is going to argue for universal authorization after first-sale, > > or no access control after first-sale, then I think one had better > > also argue for no access control on authorized copies after publication. > > This leads me to the question of whether it should be illegal to > publish (or sell) encrypted information. I'm going to attempt to explain what I think Paul means, so if he means something different, he should speak up. There are a number of ways you could publish encrypted information. 1) Publish the encrypted info, and nothing else. Merely publishing the encrypted message obligates you in no way to publish the plaintext. A classic example of this is the RSA puzzle (to which the solution involved "squemish ossifrage"). 2) Freely distribute the encrypted info, and sell the key. I think people actually use this now as a business solution. This is essentially what Moglen is talking about (only "sale" is replaced by "gift to people you trust"). I am sure there are others. However, there are some things that we here think you can't do: 1) Restrict personal use of published information. This is not related to encryption at all. You can sell me a book that has been taped shut, but you can't complain when I open it. 2) Claim that publishing encrypted works is the same a publishing unencrypted works, and then complain when people treat them similarly. This is what the MPAA is currently doing. Hope that approached clarity somewhat. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 28 21:33:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA22426 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:33:40 -0400 Received: from dial201.roadrunner.com (sf-du201.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.201]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA22423 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:33:37 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial201.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA03374 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:36:48 -0600 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:36:47 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" control Message-ID: <20000628193647.A3127@localhost> References: <20000628173503.H9454@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from sam@uchicago.edu on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:22:38PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I agree with what Sam has written. I've got one point below that I think should be clarified. On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:22:38PM -0500, sam th wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > > > If one is going to argue for universal authorization after first-sale, > > > or no access control after first-sale, then I think one had better > > > also argue for no access control on authorized copies after publication. > > > > This leads me to the question of whether it should be illegal to > > publish (or sell) encrypted information. > > I'm going to attempt to explain what I think Paul means, so if he means > something different, he should speak up. > > There are a number of ways you could publish encrypted information. > > 1) Publish the encrypted info, and nothing else. > Merely publishing the encrypted message obligates you in no way to publish > the plaintext. A classic example of this is the RSA puzzle (to which the > solution involved "squemish ossifrage"). Just to clarify: in my other post I'm talking about the control of encryption, so I have no problem with this example. The RSA puzzle is great --- the copyright owner is not asserting any control over the desrambled work via encryption. Anyone is free to break the puzzle ==> no (legal) control by the copyright owner. > 2) Freely distribute the encrypted info, and sell the key. > I think people actually use this now as a business solution. > This is essentially what Moglen is talking about (only "sale" is replaced > by "gift to people you trust"). > > I am sure there are others. > > However, there are some things that we here think you can't do: > > 1) Restrict personal use of published information. > This is not related to encryption at all. You can sell me a book that has > been taped shut, but you can't complain when I open it. > > 2) Claim that publishing encrypted works is the same a publishing > unencrypted works, and then complain when people treat them similarly. > This is what the MPAA is currently doing. > > Hope that approached clarity somewhat. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 28 21:43:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA22569 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:43:55 -0400 Received: from dial118.roadrunner.com (sf-du118.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.118]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA22566 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:43:52 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial118.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA03530 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:47:00 -0600 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:47:00 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" control Message-ID: <20000628194659.A3397@localhost> References: <20000628165200.299.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> <20000628182636.A2814@localhost> <20000628173503.H9454@zork.net> <20000628191407.A3091@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000628191407.A3091@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 07:14:08PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 07:14:08PM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 05:35:03PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > > > If one is going to argue for universal authorization after first-sale, > > > or no access control after first-sale, then I think one had better > > > also argue for no access control on authorized copies after publication. > > > > This leads me to the question of whether it should be illegal to > > publish (or sell) encrypted information. > > Encryption could be used to prevent third-parties from making unauthorized > copies of a work that is transmitted electronically. In this one narrow > sense, I think the MPAA et al. have a point. The old way of compensating > the copyright owner was $$$ when the _copy_ entered the stream of commerce. Sigh. The inclination to call encryption "copy control" runs deep. Encryption is access control, not copy control. That makes the previous paragraph inaccurate. Encryption prevents third-parties from benefiting from an unauthorized and illegal copy. Now I must stay after class and write on the chalk board: "Encryption for privacy is access control, not copy control. Copy control after publication does not exist in the Universe. It is an oxymoron." Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 28 22:49:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA23347 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:49:07 -0400 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 WAA23344 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:49:06 -0400 Received: from buzz (max01-12.suba.com [206.69.121.204]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA11237 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:51:37 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:51:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" control Message-ID: <395A7350.25983.A45739@localhost> In-reply-to: <20000628182636.A2814@localhost> References: <20000628165200.299.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:52:00AM -0700 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 28 Jun 2000, at 18:26, Paul Fenimore wrote: > I have one objection to this otherwise excellent comment by the > EFF. I think the characterization of the encryption of the public > domain as wholesale piracy is dead-on right. > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:52:00AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > The EFF has filed its post-hearing reply comment to the Copyright > > Office. The fundamental point is that CSS invokes "authorization" > > under the DMCA improperly. It's quite a good read and makes some of > > the points we've discussed here. > > > > http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DMCA/20000623_eff_dmca_ > > dvd_comments.html > > > DVDs using CSS do not protect against unauthorized access to a > work. Pirated DVDs have no trouble playing in DVD-CCA's licensed > players. Rather, the system's design and ultimate objective is to > prevent unauthorized copying - by requiring consumers to use > devices which obey design restrictions that prevent such copying. > > > I disagree that the system's "design and ultimate objective is to > prevent unauthorized copying", at least from a technical stand-point. > It is true that the licensing of CSS is used toward those ends. > Unfortunately the quote contradicts itself by mentioning "pirated > DVDs" in one sentence and "prevent unauthorized copying" in the next. > > Here's the funny thing --- while technologically CSS is access > control, it isn't access control legally because it demonstrably fails > the (a)(3)(B) test in a critical, non-correctable and final way. It > isn't copy control legally because it is not CSS that "restricts ... > the exercise of a right of a copyright owner", it is the CSS > *license*, the resulting player hardware and limitations on the > availability of "blank" media that do the restricting. I haven't read all the responses (to this of Paul's) yet, but I'd like to enhance on this point. It seems to me that watermarks fill 1201's definition of what consitutes an effective protection. We're all aware that 1201 defines "effective" not in terms of strength but in terms of technical action of the TPM, an exchange of information. Don't watermarks satisfy this definition? You put a watermark in a data file, doesn't there have to be some exchange of information for that watermark to be distinguished from the "played" data? Or, wouldn't it be easy to make some sort of non-encrypting "TPM" - a la watermarks - which satisfy this _ety-_ law? Consumers would be placed in the double bind that only players which can distinguish the "watermark" from the "played" data would be "approved players", and only players which are "approved" are allowed to distinguish the mark from the data. Does someone have some technical knowhow on this list to construct such a hypothetical TPM? It may be useful to do so. A technical effort toward this end would be really effective if it were combined with an explanation of why encryption *never* can be effective (unless you define "effective" as 1201 defines it, that is as a term having no relation to Webster's) as access control or copy control. I'd like to throw another question out there for folks to chew on: is it possible to infringe copyright without breaking the encryption? According to Schumann's 2d Opus, piracy of encrypted DVDs is very possible. Does it matter that this hypothetical ease in distribution exists for encrypted DVDs as well as decrypted ones? Should it make a difference? Is there some legal hairsplitting going on on the plaintiffs' side when we look at it in this light? I mean, as Paul says, CSS isn't copy *control*, it just makes copies useless - in theory. But that theory makes no sense unless you also add to it, under your breath, *control of environment in which users access the content*, ie control of a lot more than content. If the content providers *don't* control that environment, "piracy" of encrypted files is just as potentially damaging as piracy of unencrypted files. In any event, in total agreement with Paul here, it's not about "piracy", it's about control of the technology, and every legal attack content provision media has ever made against new tech has always been, at bottom, to control tech. sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 28 23:12:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA23571 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:12:58 -0400 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 XAA23567 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:12:56 -0400 Received: from buzz (max01-12.suba.com [206.69.121.204]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA11845 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:15:27 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:15:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" control Message-ID: <395A78E6.3673.BA2AC7@localhost> In-reply-to: <20000628194659.A3397@localhost> References: <20000628191407.A3091@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 07:14:08PM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 28 Jun 2000, at 19:47, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 07:14:08PM -0600, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 05:35:03PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > > > > > If one is going to argue for universal authorization after > > > > first-sale, or no access control after first-sale, then I think > > > > one had better also argue for no access control on authorized > > > > copies after publication. > > > > > > This leads me to the question of whether it should be illegal to > > > publish (or sell) encrypted information. > > > > Encryption could be used to prevent third-parties from making > > unauthorized copies of a work that is transmitted electronically. In > > this one narrow sense, I think the MPAA et al. have a point. The old > > way of compensating the copyright owner was $$$ when the _copy_ > > entered the stream of commerce. > > Sigh. The inclination to call encryption "copy control" runs deep. > Encryption is access control, not copy control. That makes the > previous paragraph inaccurate. Encryption prevents third-parties from > benefiting from an unauthorized and illegal copy. It's hard even to call it access control except where there's concurrent limitation of the playing environment (environment in which users interact with content). While encrypting a message does prevent a *form* of access as long as access to the decrypting key is restricted, encrypting works published and distributed is very different from encrypting that email you send to that *single* special someone.. (At least, she told me she was single.. :( ) And obviously, encryption prevents nothing on the level of access to the file itself. sp > > Now I must stay after class and write on the chalk board: "Encryption > for privacy is access control, not copy control. Copy control after > publication does not exist in the Universe. It is an oxymoron." > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jun 28 23:13:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA23578 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:13:00 -0400 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 XAA23572 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:12:58 -0400 Received: from buzz (max01-12.suba.com [206.69.121.204]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA11848 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:15:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:15:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" control Message-ID: <395A78E6.32276.BA2ABB@localhost> References: <20000628173503.H9454@zork.net> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 28 Jun 2000, at 21:22, sam th wrote: > 2) Claim that publishing encrypted works is the same a publishing > unencrypted works, and then complain when people treat them similarly. > This is what the MPAA is currently doing. This sounds related to a claim that encryption of a work should make no difference to copyright infringement of that work. That it should be just as infringing to make an infringing copy of an encrypted work as it is to make an infringing copy of a non- encrypted work. This would be to make what determines whether a copy is infringing separate from a particular use, correct? Isnt' this in fact how it is, isn't a copy infringing regardless of use? Hm, but that goes against fair use. Thinking aloud here. Can anyone make sense of what I might be getting at here, I'm not completely sure myself. :) sparky > > Hope that approached clarity somewhat. > > sam th > sam@uchicago.edu > http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 12:48:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28820 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:48:52 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28817 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:48:50 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:52:02 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C8E@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:52:01 -0700 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 While CSS may be a "big fat zero" legally (and this is a good point to press, I think) there is one technological measure that we can't dispute: the doctored "blanks" that are available to the general public that prevent recording in sectors key to the creation of DVDs. Simple, but effective and unarguably a technological measure. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:27 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS > != "access" > control > > > I have one objection to this otherwise excellent comment by the > EFF. I think the characterization of the encryption of the public > domain as wholesale piracy is dead-on right. > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:52:00AM -0700, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > The EFF has filed its post-hearing reply comment to the Copyright > > Office. The fundamental point is that CSS invokes > "authorization" under > > the DMCA improperly. It's quite a good read and makes some of the > > points we've discussed here. > > > > > http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DMCA/20000623_eff > _dmca_dvd_comments.html > > > DVDs using CSS do not protect against unauthorized access to a > work. Pirated DVDs have no trouble playing in DVD-CCA's licensed > players. Rather, the system's design and ultimate objective is to > prevent unauthorized copying - by requiring consumers to > use devices > which obey design restrictions that prevent such copying. > > > I disagree that the system's "design and ultimate objective is to > prevent unauthorized copying", at least from a technical stand-point. > It is true that the licensing of CSS is used toward those ends. > Unfortunately the quote contradicts itself by mentioning > "pirated DVDs" > in one sentence and "prevent unauthorized copying" in the next. > > Here's the funny thing --- while technologically CSS is > access control, it > isn't access control legally because it demonstrably fails > the (a)(3)(B) > test in a critical, non-correctable and final way. It isn't > copy control > legally because it is not CSS that "restricts ... the > exercise of a right > of a copyright owner", it is the CSS *license*, the resulting player > hardware and limitations on the availability of "blank" media > that do the > restricting. > > In terms of 1201 (i.e. legally), I don't think CSS is > anything. It's a > big, fat zero. > > So, while I think one can devise a system that passes the > (a)(3)(B) test > of effectiveness (e.g. the EBX book spec), the way the law is written > it turns "publication" into a non-disclosure agreement if > that's what the > copyright owner wants. That is a much wider scope for 1201(a) > then simply > providing legal cover for encrypting a work distributed > without the transfer > of a copy. > > If one is going to argue for universal authorization after first-sale, > or no access control after first-sale, then I think one had better > also argue for no access control on authorized copies after > publication. > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 12:51:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28864 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:51:07 -0400 Received: from mercury.Clearway (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28861 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:51:06 -0400 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:57:39 -0400 Message-ID: <611C0CE12596D311B466009027D5E7591E4E03@c100.clearway.com> From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:57:38 -0400 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 I also disagree with the statement that CSS is designed to prevent unauthorized copying, for the simple fact that the word "authorized" has little, if any, meaning after publication. The reason why is that what is authorized and what is not, after publication -- maybe even after first sale -- is only controlled by statute. So CSS is designed to allow corporate control of works after sale. Some of this control is in line with copyright owner's statutory rights, but much of it is not. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 14:13:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29745 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:13:09 -0400 Received: from dial165.roadrunner.com (dial165.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.165] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29742 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:13:06 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial165.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01231 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:16:05 -0600 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:16:02 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Message-ID: <20000629121601.A1191@localhost> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C8E@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C8E@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 09:52:01AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 09:52:01AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > While CSS may be a "big fat zero" legally (and this is > a good point to press, I think) there is one technological > measure that we can't dispute: the doctored "blanks" that > are available to the general public that prevent recording > in sectors key to the creation of DVDs. Simple, but > effective and unarguably a technological measure. The design of the player has to be controlled too, otherwise players could retrieve the key-sector information from some (potentially arbitrary) location other than the "designated" sector. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 14:40:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29999 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:40:52 -0400 Received: from mail2.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29996 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:40:49 -0400 Received: by mail2.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:44:00 -0700 Message-ID: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C92@mail2.onetouch.com> From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:43:55 -0700 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 To a point, yes. But you've got to know where to retrieve the information from or you don't even know what you are looking at ... that is to say: if the format for something requires it to be in place X, even if you put it into place Y it wouldn't help because everything >using that format< is looking for it in place X. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:16 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS > != "access" > c ontrol > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 09:52:01AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote: > > While CSS may be a "big fat zero" legally (and this is > > a good point to press, I think) there is one technological > > measure that we can't dispute: the doctored "blanks" that > > are available to the general public that prevent recording > > in sectors key to the creation of DVDs. Simple, but > > effective and unarguably a technological measure. > > The design of the player has to be controlled too, otherwise players > could retrieve the key-sector information from some (potentially > arbitrary) location other than the "designated" sector. > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 15:25:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30375 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:25:43 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30370 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:25:42 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 137jyx-0002ya-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:28:15 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:28:15 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Message-ID: <20000629122815.R9454@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C92@mail2.onetouch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C92@mail2.onetouch.com>; from hartman@onetouch.com on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 11:43:55AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman writes: > To a point, yes. But you've got to know where to retrieve > the information from or you don't even know what you are > looking at ... that is to say: if the format for something > requires it to be in place X, even if you put it into place > Y it wouldn't help because everything >using that format< > is looking for it in place X. Yeah, but if you could write your own player, you could get the information from elsewhere. Just like CDDB gets information about CDs over the net, out-of-band, a DVD player could get key information about CSS-encrypted DVDs which were missing their lead-in with the original keys out-of-band over the Internet. I imagine providing that information is no more a violation of copyright than is CDDB. And this trick doesn't violate requirements of the DVD Video format any more than CDDB violates requirements of the CDDA format. There's also (on a slightly different note) no technical reason that the LiViD player couldn't play illegal copies of commercial DVDs onto conusmer-grade media, unlike licensed players, which would be unable to decrypt these copies. -- 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 Jun 29 15:31:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30537 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:31:58 -0400 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30534 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:31:54 -0400 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 137k4y-0007XA-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:34:28 +0200 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 137k51-0001Gs-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:34:31 +0200 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:34:31 +0200 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Message-ID: <20000629213430.B3642@inka.de> References: <5A8391CA2D9ED311AFAA080009D982B10B1C92@mail2.onetouch.com> <20000629122815.R9454@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000629122815.R9454@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 12:28:15PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 12:28:15PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote: > There's also (on a slightly different note) no technical reason that > the LiViD player couldn't play illegal copies of commercial DVDs onto > conusmer-grade media, unlike licensed players, which would be unable > to decrypt these copies. One minor gripe: Even those copies wouldn't necessarily be illegal. They could be personal backups or somesuch. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "The war is never competely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change." (Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 16:29:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31029 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:29:24 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f213.hotmail.com [216.32.181.213]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA31026 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:29:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 372 invoked by uid 0); 29 Jun 2000 20:30:53 -0000 Message-ID: <20000629203053.371.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 208.31.105.2 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:30:53 PDT X-Originating-IP: [208.31.105.2] From: "Jace Cooke" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:30:53 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wait i am not sure i understand...you say that LiViD would be able to play illegal consumer-grade media copies while convential players would not...which consumer grade media? consumer DVD blanks? if this is what you mean, one cannot watch an entire movie from a consumer blank dvd. As I believe was mentioned earlier, the storage capacity of these blank DVDs is 4.7 gig, way too small for a feature length MPEG-2 motion picture. In addition, these blank DVDs cost over $30, almost twice as much as a legally purchase copy, so the existense of an illegal consumer-grade media based copy is highly unlikely if not impossible, rendering the debate over whether LiViD can potentially play one moot. Perhaps i am misunderstanding having not viewed the entire message string, as i am new to the forum, and would appreciate any clarification. In addition, how would such a copy be made? with DeCSS? I am not aware of any functions or complimentary binaries that facilitate such an act. Along the same lines...bit-by-bit copies are currently made using professional DVD dyes in which no circumvention/decryption occurs (thus no 17 USC 1201 infraction) and the DVD is jut transferred fuly encrypted onto another disc, which I hear is how the majority of the asian professional pirates operate. Of course this discs are still bound by regional coding...that is unless you own a modified european home DVD player... i hope i haven't re-spewed a lot of hock you guys have already re-hashed... ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 17:19:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31422 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:19:20 -0400 Received: from dial110.roadrunner.com (dial110.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.110] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31419 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:19:16 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial110.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01935 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:22:24 -0600 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:22:21 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Association of Research Libraries Message-ID: <20000629152220.A1918@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 17:22:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31545 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:22:14 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31539 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:22:07 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 137lnd-0003Ms-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:24:41 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:24:41 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Message-ID: <20000629142441.S9454@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000629203053.371.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000629203053.371.qmail@hotmail.com>; from harkness99@hotmail.com on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 04:30:53PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jace Cooke writes: > Wait i am not sure i understand...you say that LiViD would be able to play > illegal consumer-grade media copies while convential players would > not...which consumer grade media? consumer DVD blanks? if this is what you > mean, one cannot watch an entire movie from a consumer blank dvd. As I > believe was mentioned earlier, the storage capacity of these blank DVDs is > 4.7 gig, way too small for a feature length MPEG-2 motion picture. In > addition, these blank DVDs cost over $30, almost twice as much as a legally > purchase copy, so the existense of an illegal consumer-grade media based > copy is highly unlikely if not impossible, rendering the debate over whether > LiViD can potentially play one moot. Shouldn't this situation change faster than the availability of seven-minute-miracle-style broadband connections? > Perhaps i am misunderstanding having > not viewed the entire message string, as i am new to the forum, and would > appreciate any clarification. In addition, how would such a copy be made? > with DeCSS? I am not aware of any functions or complimentary binaries that > facilitate such an act. No, you use what you learn from DeCSS to write a player that ignores the lack of the lead-in on consumer blanks, and cracks keys on-line or downloads them. I guess you'd make the DVD with any burner and any burner software, retaining the entire contents of VIDEO_TS. -- 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 Jun 29 18:14:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA31878 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:14:04 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f127.hotmail.com [216.32.181.127]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA31875 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:14:02 -0400 Received: (qmail 60205 invoked by uid 0); 29 Jun 2000 22:16:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20000629221607.60204.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 208.31.105.2 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:16:07 PDT X-Originating-IP: [208.31.105.2] From: "Jace Cooke" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:16:07 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Shouldn't this situation change faster than the availability of >seven-minute-miracle-style broadband connections? Actually, not neccessarily because in fact this technology (double layer consumer dvd blanks capable of storing in excess of 6 gigs) has already been achieved, but was purposely not brought to market after CSS was broken and DeCSS, Speed Ripper, and all akin binaries started popping up. It should be no suprise that the consumer electronics companies respsonsible for the new larger blank DVD media are all members of the "DVD Forum" and therefore act in concert to keep this breakthrough out of the public's hand for fear of rampant DVD ripping/copying. Its feasible that some competitor could conceivably produce large capacity DVDs outside the sanction of the DVD forum, but this seems rather unlikely. But here is random a thought: Lets say for some reason the entire DeCSS scandal had never happened and these larger capacity DVD blanks had come to market. How would CSS prevent home users from copying DVDs for their friends? What would the DVD forum have planned to keep non-circumvention copying from happening? My guess is that the Forum would probably keep DVD blanks the same price as DVD movies thus making the copying rather pointless(if you remember, blank CDs when they first came out were quite high priced as well.) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 18:21:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA31986 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:21:01 -0400 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 SAA31981 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:21:00 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl103.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.103]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA04075 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <395BCAFC.D29BBC63@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:17:32 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol References: <20000629221607.60204.qmail@hotmail.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 Jace Cooke wrote: > >Shouldn't this situation change faster than the availability of > >seven-minute-miracle-style broadband connections? > > Actually, not neccessarily because in fact this technology (double layer > consumer dvd blanks capable of storing in excess of 6 gigs) has already been > achieved, but was purposely not brought to market after CSS was broken and > DeCSS, Speed Ripper, and all akin binaries started popping up. Got a cite for this? I think I would have heard of it, and I haven't. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 18:24:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32049 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:24:58 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f25.hotmail.com [216.32.181.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA32046 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:24:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 90762 invoked by uid 0); 29 Jun 2000 22:26:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20000629222656.90761.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 208.31.105.2 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:26:56 PDT X-Originating-IP: [208.31.105.2] From: "Jace Cooke" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] CSS2 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:26:56 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I have been hearing rumors that all the while the MPAA/DVDCCA assumed that the 40-bit encryption of CSS would be broken eventually and had CSS2 under development to take its place when it happened...Has anyone else heard about this or come across any evidence to substantiate it? Assuming this is what they planned all along, how would a new scrambling system be implemented? I guess a software (firmware?) patch could be issued perhaps even on newly purchased DVDs, but the logistics of distributing/designing/testing such an upgrade instill fear and loathing...and in the unlikely event that they succeeded what would happen to all the pre-CSS2 DVDs? would they be rendered obsolete? ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 19:15:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA32368 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:15:54 -0400 Received: from dial223.roadrunner.com (dial223.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.223] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA32365 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:15:52 -0400 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial223.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02224 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:18:59 -0600 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:18:57 -0600 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] "consumer" DVD media Message-ID: <20000629171857.A2096@localhost> References: <20000629221607.60204.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000629221607.60204.qmail@hotmail.com>; from harkness99@hotmail.com on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 06:16:07PM -0400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 06:16:07PM -0400, Jace Cooke wrote: > > >Shouldn't this situation change faster than the availability of > >seven-minute-miracle-style broadband connections? > > Actually, not neccessarily because in fact this technology (double layer > consumer dvd blanks capable of storing in excess of 6 gigs) has already been > achieved, but was purposely not brought to market after CSS was broken and > DeCSS, Speed Ripper, and all akin binaries started popping up. Do you have citations to articles that discuss this delay in shipping 6 GiB disks? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 20:50:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA00640 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:50:45 -0400 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 UAA00637 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:50:43 -0400 Received: from buzz (max01-43.suba.com [206.69.121.235]) by suba01.suba.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA18947 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:53:17 -0500 (CDT) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:52:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Message-ID: <395BA915.235.ECDA2@localhost> In-reply-to: <20000629221607.60204.qmail@hotmail.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 29 Jun 2000, at 18:16, Jace Cooke wrote: > > > But here is random a thought: Lets say for some reason the entire > DeCSS scandal had never happened and these larger capacity DVD blanks > had come to market. How would CSS prevent home users from copying > DVDs for their friends? It wouldn't. But it would ensure that all copies are still encrypted, and, at least in theory, still only playable in the industry's controlled playing environment. Assuming, of course, that they would be released with their key sectors actually blank, and not zeroed out like DVD blanks currently are. Probably the latter would be/will be the case, for blank DVDs of any capacity. Incidentally, barring the cost-ineffectiveness, it would be possible to pirate DVDs onto blank media now; the low capacity is an inconvenience (and further cost-ineffectiveness), not an absolute inhibition. (I think.) sparky What would the DVD forum have planned to keep > non-circumvention copying from happening? My guess is that the Forum > would probably keep DVD blanks the same price as DVD movies thus > making the copying rather pointless(if you remember, blank CDs when > they first came out were quite high priced as well.) > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > http://www.hotmail.com > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 22:40:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA01682 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:40:45 -0400 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA01679 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:40:42 -0400 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA30488 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:43:03 -0500 Message-ID: <395C0A07.E7EF6820@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:46:31 -0500 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS2 References: <20000629222656.90761.qmail@hotmail.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 movie distributors would produce DVDs that conform to CSS2. New DVD players would support CSS2 and CSS. Old DVD players would only support CSS, and would therefore only play pre-CSS2 DVDs. Sound plausible? It sure does. Optionally CSS2 would be backwards compatible to CSS, but I have a hard time concieving of how that would be possible at the same time as increasing the effectiveness of the control. -- moseng@mninter.net I use PGP 6.5.3 -- http://www.underwhelm.org/pgp Jace Cooke wrote: > > I have been hearing rumors that all the while the MPAA/DVDCCA assumed that > the 40-bit encryption of CSS would be broken eventually and had CSS2 under > development to take its place when it happened...Has anyone else heard about > this or come across any evidence to substantiate it? Assuming this is what > they planned all along, how would a new scrambling system be implemented? I > guess a software (firmware?) patch could be issued perhaps even on newly > purchased DVDs, but the logistics of distributing/designing/testing such an > upgrade instill fear and loathing...and in the unlikely event that they > succeeded what would happen to all the pre-CSS2 DVDs? would they be rendered > obsolete? > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 22:55:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA01791 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:55:30 -0400 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 WAA01788 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:55:28 -0400 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 TAA13468 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:58:03 -0700 Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA04726; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:10:18 -0700 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] CSS2 Date: 29 Jun 2000 19:09:09 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 38 Distribution: isaac Message-ID: <8jgvg5$4jj$1@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <20000629222656.90761.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In article <20000629222656.90761.qmail@hotmail.com>, Jace Cooke wrote: > I have been hearing rumors that all the while the MPAA/DVDCCA assumed that > the 40-bit encryption of CSS would be broken eventually and had CSS2 under > development to take its place when it happened...Has anyone else heard about > this or come across any evidence to substantiate it? I have attached below an excerpt from a post to the cryptography@c2.net mailing list, which may be relevant to the question of whether the DVD industry knew that that CSS would be cracked. As for CSS2, a simple websearch provides some evidence (e.g., from the DVDCCA website) that CSS2 was indeed under development but now seems to have been cancelled or put on hold due to the breaking of CSS. From: Andreas Bogk Newsgroups: isaac.lists.cryptography Subject: Re: DeCSS Court Hearing Report Date: 3 Jan 2000 09:00:38 -0800 Message-ID: [...] So in other words, the DVD Consortium lied to the movie industry, and are now trying to keep a straight face by legal moves. And they *knew* about the weaknesses. At the ISSE 1999 security conference in Berlin I've talked to the guy from Intel who designed the key management mechanism for DVD (and the Pentium III RNG btw.), and asked him if we didn't consider the 40 bit keylength a little weak. His answer was (and this was before the DeCSS release, and before public analysis) that there's a 2^16 attack on the bulk cipher, and that his part of the scheme was one of the strongest parts overall, and that the DVD Consortium knows about this. The 2^16 attack had been rediscovered later. [...] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 22:55:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA01801 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:55:49 -0400 Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA01798 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:55:48 -0400 Received: from 216-164-137-110.s364.tnt4.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([216.164.137.110]) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 137r0Y-00076a-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:58:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <395C0A07.E7EF6820@mninter.net> References: <20000629222656.90761.qmail@hotmail.com> <395C0A07.E7EF6820@mninter.net> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:57:45 -0400 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Jeremy Erwin Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS2 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 movie distributors would produce DVDs that conform to CSS2. New DVD >players would support CSS2 and CSS. Old DVD players would only support >CSS, and would therefore only play pre-CSS2 DVDs. > >Sound plausible? It sure does. > >Optionally CSS2 would be backwards compatible to CSS, but I have a hard >time concieving of how that would be possible at the same time as >increasing the effectiveness of the control. > >-- Ahh. Forced upgrades. Given that one of the resaons given for implementing braindead encyrption was supposedly that anything more complicated would have increased costs, I very much doubt that software uprgradibilty is possible. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 23:03:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA02016 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:03:08 -0400 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA02013 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:03:07 -0400 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 7182099C86; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6311A938C0 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:05:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol In-Reply-To: <395BA915.235.ECDA2@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 Shouldn't the EFF be trying to argue that it's use control, not copy control? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jun 29 23:22:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA02242 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:22:57 -0400 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 XAA02239 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:22:56 -0400 Received: from cdpage.com (edsl103.dnvr.uswest.net [209.180.252.103]) by web55.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA18403 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <395C11BE.B6BF117B@cdpage.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:19:26 -0600 From: Dana Parker Organization: DVD Diva X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol References: <20000629221607.60204.qmail@hotmail.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 Jace Cooke wrote: > >Shouldn't this situation change faster than the availability of > >seven-minute-miracle-style broadband connections? > > Actually, not neccessarily because in fact this technology (double layer > consumer dvd blanks capable of storing in excess of 6 gigs) has already been > achieved, but was purposely not brought to market after CSS was broken and > DeCSS, Speed Ripper, and all akin binaries started popping up. Sorry, I juist got off the phone with a senior VP at Pioneer (authors of the DVD-R spec) and there is absolutely no truth to the rumor that dual layer DVD blanks were ever considered as marketable. Doable, perhaps, but not feasible. And DeCSS had nothing whatsoever to do with it. -- Dana J. Parker http://www.cdpage.com http://www.emediapro.net http://www.dvdpro.net mailto:danapark@ix.netcom.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 30 00:39:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA02914 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:39:49 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f57.hotmail.com [216.32.181.57]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA02911 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:39:47 -0400 Received: (qmail 54642 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jun 2000 04:41:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20000630044154.54641.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.163.207.61 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:41:53 PDT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.207.61] From: "Jace Cooke" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:41:53 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana J. Parker wrote: Sorry, I juist got off the phone with a senior VP at Pioneer (authors of the DVD-R spec) and there is absolutely no truth to the rumor that dual layer DVD blanks were ever considered as marketable. Doable, perhaps, but not feasible. And DeCSS had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Thanks for the update Dana..i think i figured out where i formed the notion that led to my earlier statements concerning unreleased 6 gig DVD blanks. As you are probably well aware the burnable DVD industry is plagued by nearly half a dozen formats/standards. Now, while Dana was refering to Pioneer's DVD-R, what I was recalling concerned the Panasonic/Toshiba DVD-RAM platform which uses quite a different media then DVD-R. I read a Slashdot article (www.slashdot.org)some months ago concerning new advances in DVD-RAM technology. It stated that in addition to 2.4 gig DVDs, larger 4.7 gig DVD-RAM media was to be released. I believe it hinted that further capacity advancements would be available in the future. I then read another slashdot article that explained that Toshiba and Panasonic were going to suspend the release of DVD Audio due to the cracking of CSS. I must have subconciously correlated the two /. articles thus making an invalid inference. My most sincere apologies. Also i have no idea if the marketing limitations concerning Pioneer's DVD-R are applicable to DVD-RAM. Finally, despite my false premise, i believe the conclusion remains sound: with the exception of an upstart, the production of Blank DVD media is controlled by the DVD Forum and therefore capacity advancements that could facilitate piracy are less than likely. Now fat tubes and whopping hard drives are an entirely different story.... ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jun 30 00:42:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA03007 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:42:04 -0400 Received: from zork.zork.net ([207.20.40.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA03003 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:42:03 -0400 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 137sfL-0004Fa-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:44:35 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:44:35 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol Message-ID: <20000629214435.X9454@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20000629221607.60204.qmail@hotmail.com> <395C11BE.B6BF117B@cdpage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <395C11BE.B6BF117B@cdpage.com>; from danapark@cdpage.com on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 09:19:26PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dana Parker writes: > Jace Cooke wrote: > > > >Shouldn't this situation change faster than the availability of > > >seven-minute-miracle-style broadband connections? > > > > Actually, not neccessarily because in fact this technology (double layer > > consumer dvd blanks capable of storing in excess of 6 gigs) has already been > > achieved, but was purposely not brought to market after CSS was broken and > > DeCSS, Speed Ripper, and all akin binaries started popping up. > > Sorry, I juist got off the phone with a senior VP at Pioneer (authors of the > DVD-R spec) and there is absolutely no truth to the rumor that dual layer DVD > blanks were ever considered as marketable. Doable, perhaps, but not feasible. > And DeCSS had nothing whatsoever to do with it. What's on the horizon for higher-capacity recordable digital media? (Personal curiosity, maybe relevant to future piracy arguments.) -- 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 Jun 30 01:25:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA03254 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:25:33 -0400 Received: from bork.hampshire.edu (root@bork.hampshire.edu [206.153.194.35]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA03251 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:25:32 -0400 Received: from stout (stout.hampshire.edu [192.33.12.80]) by bork.hampshire.edu (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA17064 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:08:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:24:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ben \"NetJunki\" Moore" X-Sender: bam98@stout To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF files DMCA comment saying CSS != "access" c ontrol In-Reply-To: <20000629214435.X9454@zork.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 > What's on the horizon for higher-capacity recordable digital media? > > (Personal curiosity, maybe relevant to future piracy arguments.) > Flourescent 3D optical storage. This company already has a prototype(original link from slashdot.org) that is capable of storing 150GB on each disk. (How many DVD's is that?) http://www.c-3d.net/home.htm Ben